The MORE CIVILIZED God Debate

[Robo-Pope]

Any reply under four sentences will get you kicked out.
Any reply that goes off-topic to get four sentences will get you hit with a mug of beer and kicked out.
This post does not count.

[Jones]

so where do we start dude? lets start with the fact that nobody knows if god exists or not, and that religion was established to give people answers to why unexplainable thigns happen,

My Opinion

There is a God. god is neither or he or she, black or white, or Michael Jackson. Now for all the unexplained things that happen out there i believe that there is a plauible explanation. even though god created it i believe that there is an explanation to it. such as, "there is a universe" where skeptics have debated on this topic for many a year. i believe that god may have set things into motion, but really didnt help out much during the birth of the earth and complex organisms.

how can people who strongly believe in god explain human evolution. i think it "was" up to evolution to decide who we were at what we looked like in some way or the other. i think god is much like a kid that gets those little brine shrimp things and dumps them into a fish tank. if u let them sit there long enough, (couple hundred billion years) i think something might start to change in the shrimp that god didnt have a hand in. they naturally evolved to better suit their surroundings. god may have put them in the first place but they went off on their own. much like the huamn race. god may have gave us the first chimpanzees but it was the monkeys ultimately who evolved and turned out the humans we are today.

so, in conclusion, i believe in a mix of evolutionism and catholosism. that we may be here today, but not because of god, but becasue are own species evolution.

[NeophyteNihilist]

I'm guessing this is "Does God exist," right? I'd have to say I believe he/she/it does simply because it's pointless and depressing not to. If there is no God then there is no after life or deeper meaning to life other than producing offspring. Believing God makes life seem less pointless and makes death much less frightening and intimidating. It's like not believing there is serial killer waiting for you in the shadows where you can't see. It just makes life more bearable. I'd much rather die believing there is at least something else after this life. Even if I'm wrong and there isn't anything out there I go out conciderably more happy.

Basically I'm agnostic. I believe there is not enough evidence either way to ever know for certain. If there is a God he doesn't want us to know about him or else he'd alert us to his presense with an undisputable sign.

[mow]

I believe in the presence of God. I do believe that he is an all loving, caring powerful entity who has sent us countless prophets to guide is onto a righteuos path. This is not due to how I raised or how culture influnced me.

Do I have proof of his existance?

No. I only have my faith. Blind faith you say? It is. But in my heart, I know that to be true.

There will always be a fundemintal diffrence in the issue of faith and religion (christian believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, while we (muslims) believe he was a prophet just like Muhamed was). No one can prove this or that is wrong, and no one can prove to full certainity that God exists or not.

Therefore; since it's simply up to the person's faith, all you can do is inform them and tell them what you believe in , and then simply leave it up to them to reach a conculsion in the topic.

All that matters is this, simply live your life as best as you can, without causing harm to anyone. We all have a clear understanding of what is wrong and what is right, we should all follow it, regardless of the fact whether or God exists.

[explicitkarma]

Jeez, I missed all sorts of religious debatin' today. Anyway, my two cents probably wouldn't fit under the strict "intelligent" requirement to post here, but i'll try my best. I don't believe the existence of God, any other supreme being(s), or any afterlife philosophy is something that can be proved. The reason that God and Heaven are faiths and beliefs instead of science and facts is because we cannot possibly comprehend the whys and the hows of existance. All we are able to comprehend is the wheres and the whens. To say that there is definately one God with certain characteristics and motives is hardly based on anything factual. The only basis comes from one's personal religious belief. For all we know, our universe could be inside a macrocosmic dumpters of a much larger universe.


This was probably said many times on that other thread, along with other threads on the forums. However, I don't feel like reading through the complete eleven pages of the other thread right now, being that i've been awake for over 24 hours. I'm sorry if it's repetitive. I just want to get my view on the thread.

[Yukimura]

I'm guessing this is "Does God exist," right? I'd have to say I believe he/she/it does simply because it's pointless and depressing not to. If there is no God then there is no after life or deeper meaning to life other than producing offspring. Believing God makes life seem less pointless and makes death much less frightening and intimidating. It's like not believing there is serial killer waiting for you in the shadows where you can't see. It just makes life more bearable. I'd much rather die believing there is at least something else after this life. Even if I'm wrong and there isn't anything out there I go out conciderably more happy.

Basically I'm agnostic. I believe there is not enough evidence either way to ever know for certain. If there is a God he doesn't want us to know about him or else he'd alert us to his presense with an undisputable sign.

I completely agree with you--believing in God gives you something to look forward to, something beyond the scope of reality. It gives our lives dimension and purpose. Non-believers may live their life to the fullest, but they can't bring their money/looks/possessions with them after death, and with death, they'll eventually be forgotten--then who will know they existed at all?

You talk about an indisputable sign. The sign was Jesus--he was definitely real. This isn't deniable, as several documents of several different accounts prove this.



BTW, making this thread more "civilized" has totally smothered it.

This'll be my last post for the night, since I need to sleep and finish my online course stuff

[Nybarius]

I've been writing in threads like this--on the internet, and even on the murky realm of BBS's that came before it--for as long as I can remember. I'd like to think that I've experienced some growth during this time. Namely, when I was nine I thought that somebody might actually come away with a changed point of view. These days I am resigned to the intractable nature of such views; if anybody is going to yell "Eureka" in a burst of scientific/rational insight, or else cry "Hosanna" and ride an ass into town backwards under the sign of the cross, it is assuredly NOT going to be because of some text on a messageboard. At least, not primarily.

A thread such as this, then, falls into that category of conversation which Gore Vidal anatomized in "Myra Breckenridge" as uniquely American: one side talks, then the other side talks, then both talk at once; nobody listens.

The futility of this venture being noted--and it is a good & noble idea, seeing as how religion seems like a hot topic lately, but why dress babble up in the starched cloth of good social manners?--I'd like to go a bit off topic, if I may.

This may require some concentration, so be warned from the outset. Without further adieu, I'd like to present the soundest & most novel argument for a form of creationism I've come across in ages. Hat-tip to my guru in the shadows, shiftedShapes-sama, for bringing it to my attention:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Nazareth]

There really isint much of a debat going on here. Oh well. I believe in God. I am a strong christian, have been since I was little. Most people would argue that they dont believe in God because there is to much science proving that hes not there, which is all fine and dandy. People say that evolution disproves God, or the Big Bang disproves God, and countless stuff like that. Thats the reason most people dont beleive in him. I think that thats a stupid reason not to. Maybe God used the big bang to create the universe. Maybe he used evolution to create us all. Maybe all science is right. That still doesnt really disprove God. the best case against God would be we havent seen him. If hes there why hasnt he shown himself? Well he did through Jesus, but for some people thats not enough becuase they still dont believe the Jesus thing. Think about it like this; say like you have a collection of super smart ants or something like that. Now you want them to worship you because you love them and want to spend forever with them. You can do two things: You can never fully show yourself , showing wich ones really love you through faith, or you can show yourself making everyone worship you because at that point the ants cant deny your there anymore. What do you think you'd get more praise form? The ants that always trusted you even though they couldnt see you, or the ones that needed to proof of you to worship you? I think thats why God hasnt just stood out there in the open, or made us worship him. that was probably a crappy example of what I was trying to get across, but you get the idea.

[akuma no omoigakenai saku]

The reason I don't believe in God (agnostic, not atheist) isn't that science has proven that he doesn't exist (it hasn't), but because I have never seen or heard any good reason to believe that God does exist. I am simply incapable of believing in God without a reason to do so.

Though I identify as agnostic, I tend to lean ever so slightly toward atheism. This is because I have found that, while no one has offered any proof either way, strong believers tend to offer many arguments that make me think there is a better explanation for the concept of god, than for the actual existence of god.

posted by NeophyteNihilist
Believing God makes life seem less pointless and makes death much less frightening and intimidating. It's like not believing there is serial killer waiting for you in the shadows where you can't see. It just makes life more bearable. I'd much rather die believing there is at least something else after this life. Even if I'm wrong and there isn't anything out there I go out considerably more happy.

This line of thought makes me think that the concept of god could just as easily be contributed to a fear of death than to any actual divine revelations.

This, coupled with the argument that god must exist because there is so much that is impossible to explain about the complexity of the universe, and the fact that Thor and Zeus were similarly created out of a need to explain strange phenomena that we now understand, has lead me to believe that a fear of the unknown and a psychological need to find causes for experiences we do not fully comprehend are a more believable genesis for religion than those that the religions themselves espouse.

Even if I wanted to believe in god (and I'd prefer not to), I would not be able to, because my mind will not allow my emotions to make that decision in it's stead.

Even if there is a god of any kind, I strongly doubt that any religion is correct about it. I'll remain a somewhat-doubting agnostic until I see any evidence whatsoever to completely prove or disprove god.

I'm glad that everyone is being civil in this thread, fearful as we all are of Vash's retribution. I do find that the term "Non-believer" carries with it an unintentional connotation similar to those of the terms "heathen" and "infidel" that can be a little irksome, but I can't think of a more neutral synonym that does not carry that connotation, so I guess it will have to do.

[Yavanna]

I believe in god. ive read the bible. i used to go to church regularly w/my family but now i rarely attend. but i still believe in god however i think there is way too much scientific evidance on evolution and all that. But then again there are questions science will NEVER be able to answer. the biggest such question is " how the universe began." Thats why i say a higher power HAD to have something to do with the spark of life that began it all.

[Nazareth]

I think the fact that we are alive is proof enough that there is a God. akuma no omoigakenai saku, I really like your argument, becuase its so true among a lot of people today. Why should you believe in God if there isint any reason? I think it makes life more meaningful to serve God. What purpose does your life have if you only live for yourself or earthly things? None of its going to matter in the end when you die. Most people think life is all about accumulation. Get all you can as fast as you can and be happy. But when you die all of that means nothing, zip, zilch, nothing at all. Life seems more purposful to serve God, becuase it will mean something in the end. When live with a higher purpose it makes life so much more meaningful. Thats one reason I think its good to worship God (that and were called to in the bible). It doesnt really sound like you dont have much of a reason not to, it sounds more like you just dont want to. I might be wrong, but if im not thats still fine if you just dont want to. Now im sure that was all more of a better explenation of a concept of God rather than proof of existance. The biggest proof of God we have is Jesus. I know thats the typical generic bone-head christian response, but think about it. Although its hard to prove the miracles he did to atheists/agnostics, you'll find that most scientists will agree in the end that Jesus really did raise from the dead. Also the fact that every single culture has some God figure is interesting, becuase if God isint real then its funny to me so many diferent cultures could come up with one. Our plaet is also a little funny. Its perfect in ever way for us. its size is perfect.

The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.4 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html was my source for that.

As for religions and which one is correct, I think christianity is on track. Its set apart from every other religion which makes it very unique. A guy got nailed to a cross to die for us. What other religion has done that? Im not going to go into detail about it becuase it'll take to long. I would recomend reading the case for faith. Its a little boring, but I think youll like it.

[Nybarius]

Here's a distinction about science that I feel often gets lost in conversations like these. Science is little more than a set of instructions designed to test the veracity of hypotheses. It deals not in Absolute Truth, like ideology or religion, but rather in reducing degrees of uncertainty. As such, the analogy between science and religion is crooked, although they are often compared as if they were the same kind of thing. Religion attempts to offer anwers about man's place in the world; science offers viable answers about everything under the sun, except the mystery of the no-tailed ape who schemes and cries (except in the most mechanical sense). In fact, if science did venture into the realm of explaining life and its meaning--my bets on there not being one, but stick with me--it's likely that the result would be circular and meaningless; you know, "42" or something.

By the way, as far as arguments about the improbability of man existing in a universe so finely tuned to give birth to life, one does well to remember that the odds of any event occurring are always 100% after it happens. If we're here thinking about the improbability of our existence, then our existence is 100% probable; for how else could we contemplate this improbability?

I recently read an enthralling popular treatment on the universe's seeming unlikelihood called "Just Six Numbers". Short and sweet; check it out.

[skunkworks]

I believe in god, but not really because I was taught to. I'll always remain skeptical, but logically it seems that the universe had to have a beginning, and thus a "birth". I let science dictate, in a sense, the workings of the tangible. But spiritually, I felt like I was yearning. It wasn't out of desperation, nor was it a submission, I was genuinely curious. Whether this "yearning" is biological, I can't tell you. I'm sure there are some biological aspects attributed to the belief in god. Bottom line, we can't really prove that god exists, and we can't prove that he doesn't. It is the religious fanatacism the belief in god sometimes breeds that disconcerts me.

[Nybarius]

Skunkworks: Well, Aristotle followed a similar line of reasoning until he came up with the "First Cause," an "unmoved mover" who sprang from void and willed all reality.

Since the current Judaeo-Christian deity was cobbled together from the remnants of thousands of pagan myths, rituals, and traditions, it's not quite so sleek and logically sound. If you give the Bible--particularly the five books of my man, Moses--a close read, you can detect some shagginess where the beginning should be; hints at the birth of the Lord.

I mean: if you follow back a chain of causality and find God at the beginning, then what came before God? Leviathan? A snow-cow? Gaia?

Furthermore, it's a non sequitur to assume that since the universe had to have a beginning it also had to have a creator. It could be that it sprang from another universe, or perhaps its stuck in a recursive loop in time--an eternal golden braid, heh, heh, heh--with ends crossed, spiraling out to infinity. Or maybe we're all part of an elaborate "moral simulation" conducted by a fabulous post-human society. The point is, there are other possible accounts re: Genesis, and therefore your line of reasoning to support belief in some deity is hollow.

It seems to me that you deeply yearn to make a leap of faith, but, being of an analytical bent, you fight your natural inclination. No need to make excuses on account of Science, which is forever in a state of suspended disbelief: make your leap of faith, be true to your dyed-in-the-wool preference for a logically ordered cosmology. If nothing else, you'll tear at yourself less.

This neatly brings up one of the core fallacies of Religion(s), generally: they mostly assume that not only does man try to make sense of the Universe, but also that it actually makes some sort of sense; and furthermore some sort of sense which is pleasing to us. Personally, I'm of a temperament which inclines me toward suspecting that the Universe is cold and indifferent; it's out there to be understood, but it's certainly NOT aligned to play host to a race of egotistical monkey men with erect postures, opposable thumbs, and a rather nice brain to spinal column ratio.

Without wasting so many words, what I want to say is this: even if God is out there, why would he care about us?

[skunkworks]

Skunkworks: Well, Aristotle followed a similar line of reasoning until he came up with the "First Cause," an "unmoved mover" who sprang from void and willed all reality.

Since the current Judaeo-Christian deity was cobbled together from the remnants of thousands of pagan myths, rituals, and traditions, it's not quite so sleek and logically sound. If you give the Bible--particularly the five books of my man, Moses--a close read, you can detect some shagginess where the beginning should be; hints at the birth of the Lord.

I mean: if you follow back a chain of causality and find God at the beginning, then what came before God? Leviathan? A snow-cow? Gaia?

Furthermore, it's a non sequitur to assume that since the universe had to have a beginning it also had to have a creator. It could be that it sprang from another universe, or perhaps its stuck in a recursive loop in time--an eternal golden braid, heh, heh, heh--with ends crossed, spiraling out to infinity. Or maybe we're all part of an elaborate "moral simulation" conducted by a fabulous post-human society. The point is, there are other possible accounts re: Genesis, and therefore your line of reasoning to support belief in some deity is hollow.

It seems to me that you deeply yearn to make a leap of faith, but, being of an analytical bent, you fight your natural inclination. No need to make excuses on account of Science, which is forever in a state of suspended disbelief: make your leap of faith, be true to your dyed-in-the-wool preference for a logically ordered cosmology. If nothing else, you'll tear at yourself less.

This neatly brings up one of the core fallacies of Religion(s), generally: they mostly assume that not only does man try to make sense of the Universe, but also that it actually makes some sort of sense; and furthermore some sort of sense which is pleasing to us. Personally, I'm of a temperament which inclines me toward suspecting that the Universe is cold and indifferent; it's out there to be understood, but it's certainly NOT aligned to play host to a race of egotistical monkey men with erect postures, opposable thumbs, and a rather nice brain to spinal column ratio.

Without wasting so many words, what I want to say is this: even if God is out there, why would he care about us?

Random question, are you someone who doesn't believe in the idea of morals? Not necessarily the ones societies came up with, but like an unwritten law regarding murder as unacceptable.

I rarely take anything in the Torah literally. I see it more as a philosophy. While all of your arguements, eloquent as ever, are sound, you still can't prove that god doesn't exist. And I can't prove that god does. It's just an interpretation of the reality around me. The world is indifferent, you're absolutely right. Why not experiment, and experience a little intellectual and spiritual stimulation.

[uji-tiger]

I do believe there is a God. If it's the god from the Bible or the Hindu gods, or even greek gods, I do not know. Though for me, personally, I do believe the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God is perhaps the most plausible. Why? Well, it somehow just feels right somehow. Eventhough having said this, this doesn't mean I'm one of those cross-wearing, going-to-church-every-Sunday, praying, preaching guys of faith. Although I do tend to think of myself as somewhat Christian (seeing, 'officially', if you could call it that, I'm Catholic), but I haven't found a direction or church that fits my look on the Bible...yet. Though I'm not really looking for one either.
However I'm falling away from the main question, is there a God, if so, why? Well why wouldn't there be a God? I hate to quote George Lucas on this, but eh, Ask any 'disbeliever' why there wouldn't be a God, that why isn't there one. They can't really answer that. Often they come up with things like "the Bible isn't correct, it doesn't make sense" or the evolutiontheory. But, I too think, well, I know that things that are stated in the Bible aren't always true. After all, it may bring the message and will of God, it is still written down by man. And man is flawed and selffish, by nature. I too believe in the evolution theory, heck, I don't disargee with the Big Bang theory. Although, they still remain what they are... theories. But still I believe there is a God. There must be something not describable out there.
You might say, "I don't see, feel, hear, or whatever, him; thus he can't be real". But can you feel, hear, taste or whatever there is in the air? Can you TASTE, can you FEEL oxygen?
Belief is believing. Belief isn't fact. Neither is it fiction. To be, God is just there. He's everywhere, he desides fate. I mean, do you believe in destiny? Do you believe in winning a race? Do you believe that if I punch you in your nuts that it will hurt? This too is all belief.
Now, my opinion to God, however, isn't all bright and cheerful. If I read the Bible, the OT, so, actually, if I were to read the Tora, I come across many things that God does, that is, in my eyes, bad. Although he's still the one who's done alot of good too.
Religion however, has done even worse things. The Inquisition, wars, killing cultures, heck, even the recent terrorist attacks are somewhat based on religion. But then again, it too has done good things. It is in balance, sort of speak.

[Nybarius]

Random question, are you someone who doesn't believe in idea of morals? Not necessarily the ones societies came up with, but like unwritten laws regarding murder, and theft as unacceptable.

You're going to have to explain what you mean, because I don't quite understand. That however won't stop me from answering at length; hopefully my answer will satisfy.

To address the base question: of course I believe in morals! I have first-hand experience with them, as I live my life according to principles that bear such a striking resemblance to the dictionary definition of "morality" that they must be one and the same. Though my morals aren't quite in alignment with those of majoritarian society, there they are nonetheless.

Furthermore, I believe that other people exist and have consciousness (it's quite a leap of faith, really, to believe that everybody else isn't a robot automaton or a zombie simulation consciousness--especially on Mondays--after all, cogito ergo sum only applies on an individual level, barring psychic talents I don't possess. Moreover, I believe that other people, like me, put moral limiters on their free will. What else could have stopped that dusthead from pounding my face in when I dissed his momma--who it turns out had just died--in a freestyle battle? It sure as heck wasn't my winning smile.

All this being said, I've found that most people relate to morals as a set of 'free-floating rationales'; like a set of rules on a board-game which dictate all the action of the game despite being unknown to the players. And then there's this problem: are ones morals, how one would act given these or those circumstances, set in stone, or are they fancifully cobbled together by memory? I think that most moral thinking, my own included, could easily be chalked up to post-hoc rationalization.

Getting back to the main topic, yes, I believe in morals, ethics--heck, I even like to think I adhere to a code of honor. I sleep better at night knowing that I haven't fallen below a certain level of punctilio, although t'is probably just a state dependent thing mediated by chemicals in my brain -- IE, if I'm feeling down in the dumps, I'd likely convert minor failings easily glossed over during sunnier days into mortal sins. More interestingly, I think that I probably sleep better when I believe that there are some limits to what I'm capable of set up -- I'm bad with boundaries, and I often feel that all the walls of politeness & civility which confine, confound, and contain me during the working week are in constant danger of collapse.

Beyond helping to regulate my internal state, I think that morals on their many levels (individual, social, global, &c) are still a needed ingredient if civilization is to work -- and since civilization bears sweet fruit like anime, I willfully give myself over to their yoke, although once again I'd like to see a sea-change in some commonly accepted mores.

All this being the case, people who believe that their system of morality ultimately stems from He Whose Name is Holy have good cause to worry about me. While they have an omnipresent, omnipotent watchdog waiting for them to screw up the whole "free will" thing, I'm traipsing about on the 'honor system'. That is, if I were to kill somebody--for talkin' out both sides of his damn fool mouth, perhaps--and knew I could get away scott-free, the onus would fall squarely on me; only I could decide that I'd done something wrong; no voice from above or burning bush would come down and rescue me from the quandary.

And, who knows, perhaps in that instance murder was for the greater good, and the victim & his or her loved ones ought to thank me. I'd like to be free to choose, and despite the uneasiness I feel in granting others that right, I can't very well hog it all for myself in anything resembling an open society.

Here, I think, history is looping back on itself. This is a post-enlightenment era; no longer are people compelled to shackle themselves to the old ways; the absolute law, the decalogue. Once more, man is free to confront the terrifying possibilities of his freedom. Absent Yahweh's laws and their secular doppelganger, the categorical imperative, what will we DO, and . . . why?

These questions are as pressing as ever, and I think that, given today's climate, they can finally be addressed with--big 10 commandments pun coming up--a clean slate. (as well as their secular cousin, the categorical imperative) In summation: nowadays, more and more often the slave gets to choose his master. While it's true that this way is dangerous, a return to the ways of the past is impossible; once opened, Pandora's jug can't be plugged.

Finally: yes, of course I can't disprove the existence of God. Just like you can't disprove the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or anything, for that matter. Proving a negative is effectively impossible, because we live in a world of possibilities. So of course you're free to believe whatever you wish; to me, the interesting question is: why?

;)

PS: TO directly answer what I now take to be your question -- I think that ethics and morals are useful, and should be judged according to their social usefulness. Murder is justified sometimes, however in those cases there's a neat little trick people play: just call it by some name other than "murder," and it all seems to work out. As far as the details go, I'm hopelessly wishy-washy; I can't decide whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or if that would end up as the rule of local majorities a la the American South before the Civil War, where a majority of whites oppressed an African-Americans minority -- surely, this was for the good of the many, right? And then there's the Nietzschean argument that great birds of prey should be able to keep what they kill . . . oh, it boggles me so. Going to stop now. (Sigh). I'm about to blow a gasket; damn you, Vash! This thread has got me thinking.

[Sayo]

IMO god does and doesn't excists, he doesn't because this world was created with the whole star system molucul thingie. (sp????)
the theory about god creating the universe and putting the 2 first people here on eart is nonsense to my ears.

but why does god excists then?
well as an icon for hope god/s got created out of hope for mostly resembling things that men couldn't explain, for example certain wheather effects.

it's just a shame some people hide behind the real reasons and use this as an excuse for war and other tragious things.

[Nybarius]

well as an icon for hope god/s got created out of hope for mostly resembling things that men couldn't explain, for example certain wheather effects.

In the book "The Mind of God," this type of deity is termed the "God of the Gaps" (probably an old name, but that's where I saw it first). He is a slippery shadow-God, who exists within the cracks of human understanding; he flees the light of understanding like a cockroach when the lights flick on. When cloud-formation was explained, he hid out in the cosmos; now that we are plumbing the endless ebon depths of the night sky, he's holed up in the center of a blackhole. Should mankind's mindscape ever manage to penetrate the singularity of this bunker, this cowardly gap-God will undoubtedly vacate and find some other obfuscated area not yet encompassed by scientific understanding.

Perhaps you'll catch a glimpse of him skittering toward some new mystery on that day--each one seems smaller than those before it, like a flipbook of Russian folding dolls--after the light of understanding has illumined his previous hidey-hole. An ineffectual deity, to be sure.

[OtacontheOtaku]

Well, the question isn't very specific, but I'm guessing you're asking, "Does the Hebrew God of the Old Testament exist?" or "Does the father of Joshua (the accurate translation of "Jesus") of Nazareth exist?" or "Does a God exist, not necessarily that of those main religions, but others".

I'm gonna answer that by saying this, the Gods of all the World's main religions don't exist, or rather, don't exist in the capacity they are believed to. Yahweh (the God of the Old Testament) was the Hittite God Adad and the source of many religious Gods including the Zeus of the Greeks. Buddha, Krishnu, and Jesus all come from ancient Egyptian myths stemming from the sun God Amon-Ra (Jesus in particular came from the story of Horus, their lives are almost identical right down to the smallest details). Whether or not Adad is actually alive (long explanation) is subject to interpretation.

Now, is there a God? Simply put, yes. Is it something we can talk to? No. Is it something we can feel? Yes. There HAS to be a God or more accurately a "God-force" at work within the universe. We all possess a special type of energy inside us, this energy was discovered by Einstein and his collegues when studying the effects of magnets on the human body. This energy was so foreign that they could only describe it as a "soul". So yes, humans have an energy that allows them to function on a plane not of this Earth, and that same energy runs throughout our world and the rest of the universe. When humans die, this "soul" flows from the anchor in the human body, and back into this force. Whether or not we maintain consciousness after death is something I'm not sure, but it's definitely a possibility.

All in all, there is a "God-force" within the universe, it just doesn't answer prayers or cause miracles or anything like that (though certain ways have been known to, this stems from some pretty complex quantum theory though, so I won't get into it).


Sources:
- Research of Albert Einstein
- Research of R.A. Boulay
- Various sources on the origin of Jesus including:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen046.html
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm

[Nazareth]

IMO god does and doesn't excists, he doesn't because this world was created with the whole star system molucul thingie. (sp????)
the theory about god creating the universe and putting the 2 first people here on eart is nonsense to my ears.

but why does god excists then?
well as an icon for hope god/s got created out of hope for mostly resembling things that men couldn't explain, for example certain wheather effects.

it's just a shame some people hide behind the real reasons and use this as an excuse for war and other tragious things.


I agree with you, is does sucl that people use God as a means of war. look at the president. hes says God is telling him to do that war. As I said earlier science cnat really disprove God. Maybe we did evolve from monkeys, and maybe the universe was created from the big bang or whatever your thinking of. Maybe Genesis is some sort of parable, that doesnt mean theres no God. Maybe God used those tehcniques to create us to what we are now. People do use God as an icon of hope and what not, because its a good thing to place hope in. A higher power that loves you and wants to spend forever with you.

Skunkworks, you said like you were yearning for God or something like that. There was actually an interesting article in Time magazine about whether we have a 'God' gene which makes us want to believe in God or a higher power of some sort.

[explicitkarma]

What purpose does your life have if you only live for yourself or earthly things? None of its going to matter in the end when you die. Most people think life is all about accumulation. Get all you can as fast as you can and be happy. But when you die all of that means nothing, zip, zilch, nothing at all. Life seems more purposful to serve God, becuase it will mean something in the end. When live with a higher purpose it makes life so much more meaningful. Thats one reason I think its good to worship God (that and were called to in the bible).

That is your belief, and I respect it as it is. However, I don't believe that a life without serving God is a wasted life, nor would life mean nothing in the end. For example, I am a musician. I do not really live for material goods. Often times, musicians cannot affoard a lot of material goods. However, like other artists, inventors, designers, my creations are the extension of myself that will still exist after I die. That alone gives me comfort at death and also gives my life meaning after death.

[Nybarius]

Hm. OtacontheOtaku, I really appreciate seeing such a polished post as the one you made earlier in this thread--I mean, a Narutofan post with footnotes; I barely managed to scrawl my John Hancock in crayon on some of my college term papers!--however, I'm afraid I think the "divine magnetism" you subscribe to is utter hogwash. I didn't follow the links, nor did I go in depth, but from your brief description it's already fishy enough to merit an express trip to the trashcan of any patent office, due to its contradiction of some very well established laws of physics and such. Also, the appeal to authority--wow, EINSTEIN discovered God? Well if anybody can talk to the old bean after our man Moses, it's got to be that gentle genius!!--renders it all the fishier. I'm typing on borrowed time now--just can't pull myself away, yaknow--but let me ask you, would you like to examine the claims of this divine force you are putting forward together? Might be fun to go over, and also I'd be fulfilling a CSICOP (http://csicop.org/si)membership requirements.

[ANBU87]

I believe in God. I have since i can remember. and for those who need proof. try praying, and having lots of faith(but don't pray for something selfish like a million dollars or something). It's one of the ways that proved to me, the existance of God. Oh, and that God created the world in 6 days(minus the 7th days cause he rested) thing and evolution, some ppl might say, "evolution says it took millions of years to create life on the planet." who said that God's 6 days are the same as our 6 days? fior him, one day could be like a 5.453 million years or something.

[therealultimatepower]

I believe in God. I have since i can remember. and for those who need proof. try praying, and having lots of faith(but don't pray for something selfish like a million dollars or something). It's one of the ways that proved to me, the existance of God. Oh, and that God created the world in 6 days(minus the 7th days cause he rested) thing and evolution, some ppl might say, "evolution says it took millions of years to create life on the planet." who said that God's 6 days are the same as our 6 days? fior him, one day could be like a 5.453 million years or something.


Maybe we should tell all the starving people in Africa to pray? Maybe we should tell all the people getting shot up daily to pray? Or maybe praying could have stopped 9/11 or the tsunami? You must be kidding or living in a fantasy world to think praying does anything useful.

Didn't the Bible specifically say 6 days? It didn't say 5.453 million years. And it didn't have a conversion table in it or anything. THerefore, the Bible says God created everything in 6 days. THerefore the Bible is WRONG.

[abfluvver]

Didn't the Bible specifically say 6 days? It didn't say 5.453 million years. And it didn't have a conversion table in it or anything. THerefore, the Bible says God created everything in 6 days. THerefore the Bible is WRONG.
The Bible also says that God does not reckon time as human do.

--ABF,
An agnostic who loves people on both sides of the debate equally.
Free love for all! <3333

[therealultimatepower]

It still says 6 days. If God has such great foresight, why not avoid the confusion and say he created it in 6 "God days" then?

[explicitkarma]

I believe in God. I have since i can remember. and for those who need proof. try praying, and having lots of faith(but don't pray for something selfish like a million dollars or something). It's one of the ways that proved to me, the existance of God. Oh, and that God created the world in 6 days(minus the 7th days cause he rested) thing and evolution, some ppl might say, "evolution says it took millions of years to create life on the planet." who said that God's 6 days are the same as our 6 days? fior him, one day could be like a 5.453 million years or something.

Exactly!


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, a void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Now this occurs in the first day of the creation as stated in the Bible. However, it notes that the earth was without form, a void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. However, if there was no light or form, how was the length of a day determined? Without a sun to produce light and without the earth having form to revolve around the sun, it could very well be possible for a "God day", in particular the first day, to last millions of years.

[skunkworks]

Maybe god created the world to seem as if it has been existing for 5 million years. :P

[Nemesis]

haha still 5 million years is a short time for earths life since like life on the planet itself has been around for near enough 3-4 billion years and the earth another billion years before that.

[abfluvver]

It still says 6 days. If God has such great foresight, why not avoid the confusion and say he created it in 6 "God days" then?
Not everyone who reads or believes the Bible takes it literally. I don't think it SHOULD be taken literally either (because that would be slightly dangerous and would make no sense well, LESS sense)
I'm not Christian or anything, so I'm not even sure if what I'm saying is anywhere near accurate, but it is a different way of thinking about it.

[Sands]

i'm just going to repeat what i said on the forum "how did god come to be?"

"god" is different for other cultures. people believe in something all together and it creates some kind of order. the bible is considered a holy tesment but was written and later changed by man. therefore it is not god's laws but our own. larger religions in the past would take symbols from smaller religions and change them for the worse. for example: posedion's trident became the devil's pitchfork, the wise crone's hat became that of a witch, the pagan symbol of the godess of love and fertality became devil worship. many of the things we see today were taken from religions symbols that have been changed. to different people god means something else. there is no proof that god exists but people feel more secure if they think it does.

[Nazareth]

Maybe we should tell all the starving people in Africa to pray? Maybe we should tell all the people getting shot up daily to pray? Or maybe praying could have stopped 9/11 or the tsunami? You must be kidding or living in a fantasy world to think praying does anything useful.

Didn't the Bible specifically say 6 days? It didn't say 5.453 million years. And it didn't have a conversion table in it or anything. THerefore, the Bible says God created everything in 6 days. THerefore the Bible is WRONG.

You sound like a person who jumps to conclusions way to fast. Your right, praying didnt do much for tsunami victims or 9-11 or the war or anythinglike that. All goes to show you that God lets bad stuff happen to us. Why? Im not sure but im also not God an I dont have everything figured out. Maybe we think parying for those things arent doing much but look at it like this. Maybe people praying is bring one more person home from war. Maybe praying saved one more life during a tsunami. Maybe praying fed one more person in Africa. Maybe just because we cant see what the effects pray has doesnt mean it doesnt have any.

As for the 6 days thing and what not. Maybe the bible was created in 6 days. Maybe it was created in million of years. Who knows. So what if god created it in millions of years, that doesnt disprove the bible. I dont think God goes by our tiem becuase it was man made. Anywho, maybe the earth just appears as if it was made millions of years ago. When God made trees he made them big, not little twigs. When he made adam he was only a year old but he looked as if he was 30 or so. God could have given things an aged look.

[Phancy Pants]

ok, basically my contention is that God probably does exist, but does not have as big a part in our lives as some may think.

I believe in god. ive read the bible. i used to go to church regularly w/my family but now i rarely attend. but i still believe in god however i think there is way too much scientific evidance on evolution and all that. But then again there are questions science will NEVER be able to answer. the biggest such question is " how the universe began." Thats why i say a higher power HAD to have something to do with the spark of life that began it all.

Agree with you 100% Yavanna. There are hundreds of things about the living world that have so easily been explained by science that there is no need for religion in some cases. And I believe that sometimes calling something 'an act of God' is basically the easy way out. I mean, religiously, man came about with the creation of Adam and Eve by the hand of God himself. But then, scientists believe that man evolved from fish, who in turn evolved from much simpler single celled creatures through evolution, and it has been proven that evolution can have a huge impact on any living thing.

Another such theory is the creation of our solar system, which according to scientists came about after the explosion of a super nova, and once again, this can be proven (on a smaller scale of course, unless they have a cardboard box big enough to fit several planets)

Anyways, I also find some things in the Bible a bit intriguing. For instance, it states somewhere that you should never ask God to perform a divine act to prove his existence (or something to that extent, at least in the bible I'm reading). Isn't that kinda sus? "I exist, and do basically anything you can think of, but DONT YOU DARE ASK FOR A SANDWICH IF YOU'RE HUNGRY! OK?!" Thousands of years ago, any crack head (lepar if you prefer) could have easily created his own religion, but have stated that you never ask anything of it, and anything good that happens, will be subtle, but still a result of the religion. BANG! HELLO CHRISTIANITY! But I'm getting in over myself. That's my 2 cents I guess. I have more, but lets keep this PG huh?

[therealultimatepower]

Nazareth, the fact of the matter is, there is no evidence of any kind that prayer does ANYTHING. Like the people above said, God does not intervene, so your prayer actually means jack$hit. And so what if praying feeds one more kid, or saves one tsunami victim, or spared a life from 9/11. THat doesn't compare to the thousands that die/died.

THe Bible is wrong because it SPECIFICALLY says 6 days. I don't know why you guys try to manipulate that fact. It never said 6 "God days," it said 6 DAYS. Do you go around making up your own calendars and clocks or something?

[newtofu]

Even if god existed, he would not matter to us at all. If everyone keeps depending on this god, they'd only get hurt in the end, when there's no god to protect you. Everyone "created" this god from words. Religion and god alike are both fairy-tales that scare adults from sinning, as to the boogeyman toward adolescents. The whole bible is just a jumble of stories for the people who don't experience these things themselves. God is only a role model for someone, but why not find someone in reality?

If i end up dying, and i confront god, i wouldn't be threatening at all to him, because with the concept of god, comes the ideal of satan. Everything in reality has an opposite.. white is to black .. fire to water .. and opposites attract each other as much as the ends of a magnet. If there were no black, there would be no white, those of which, compliment the existance of each other. With no criminals, there would be no superheroes. If you really think about it, everything has an opposite. So .. as i am the opposite of god's ideals, it would be normal for me to be so. It's okay to not believe in god because it just doesn't matter .. because i might even end up saving god's true believers, later in my life.

Since majority rules that he exists, everyone just assumes that he does. It's just a situation like this .. your best friend is friends with this bully, and you tell him to stay away from the bully because he's a fake friend. But it's stuff like this, that people just have to experience for themselves; that best friend may never realize that he's really a true bully until it's too late, since he believes that the bully has a spark of niceness in him. Your whole life is an instance of trial and error, and it's just like saying that we're all doctors .. you can't just read all these books and understand the human body. a successful doctor needs to go out and experience all the problems he/she might encounter in real life.

Although his existance may be proven true, it wouldn't matter because the longer you think about praising him for creating you, the longer you think about what the meaning of life is, there'd be a shorter time to live life yourself.

[Nazareth]

Nazareth, the fact of the matter is, there is no evidence of any kind that prayer does ANYTHING. Like the people above said, God does not intervene, so your prayer actually means jack$hit. And so what if praying feeds one more kid, or saves one tsunami victim, or spared a life from 9/11. THat doesn't compare to the thousands that die/died.

THe Bible is wrong because it SPECIFICALLY says 6 days. I don't know why you guys try to manipulate that fact. It never said 6 "God days," it said 6 DAYS. Do you go around making up your own calendars and clocks or something?

You know some people see the whole six days thing as just a story. some christians just look at it as a story. Same with Adam and eve, some christians just see it as a story to prove a point, like a parable. To me that sounds perfectly reasonable. You sound a little to caught up over this 6 days thing. Anyway as I said earlier, mabey God just gave the world a few million years old apperance. Like he did with adam, he didnt start out as a baby, he had the apperance of an older person.

As for prayer, look at it this way. Do you remember the guy who tried to light off bombs in his shoes shortly after 9/11? Maybe him being stopped was a result of prayer. 9/11 happened becuase there are messed up people in this world and I dont think prayer will stop them because God gave for free will to do messed up things.

[Cyanna]

THe Bible is wrong because it SPECIFICALLY says 6 days.

Yes it does...

However you are not looking at the Bible in it's historical context.

The creation story was passed down for who knows how long by word of mouth before it was finally written down. Actually, the Bible has TWO creation stories because one could not be given preference over the other. One is more universe-centric (God creates the word in six days) and the other is more human-centric (Adam and Eve etc.).

What the ancient Hebrews did was not unusual. In fact, they did exactly what all ancient civilizations did at the time...create their own stories to explain how something came to be, why things are the way they are or major historical events. Every one has their creation story, their stories that explain why the world is the way it is, and historical events. For example...both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh contain a story about a devastating flood and how live continued after it was over.

However...whether or not you believe...I still think it is remarkable to see that belief in the Judeo-Christian God has survived for thousands of years and still remains pretty popular.

[Moritsune]

IMO, god doesn't exist. scientifically, there isn't any way that he can exist and there not be any proof. i rather like the theory of evolution b/c it has been proven to be possible by studying other organisms on the earth. alot of ppl have faith in god, and i respect that, but can not personally have faith in something that hasn't been proven to physically exist. my friends and i have many theories on the subject, but i'd rather not say them here as i may offend someone and that wouldn't be nice.

[blacklusterseph004]

It seems many people start out believing in God, but when they encounter something in their religion which they can't explain, they turn their back on it. I believe in God, and in the interests of being light-hearted I'll give a loose statistical reason. The odds of a planet such as ours eventually being able to support life are astronomical, let alone the conditions required for life to begin. Perhaps more impressive though, are the odds that it should remain like this for as long as it has. The universe is an extremely dangerous place. Everything from meteors to cosmic radiation threaten to destroy planets or render them uninhabitable. So then how is it that we happen to beat these incredible odds and continue to do so to survive on this planet to develop to the point that we have? I choose to explain this with the existance of a being capable of making it so and willing to do so.

[megawhatever]

First of all, I believe in God; for many reasons. First of all, the big question mark of life is how we all began? Did we evolve from small bacteria cells and one cell beings. I certainly don't think so. How could we be living in a perfectly made world where nature and human intertwines with each other so that we could survive for so long. Even if the universe is a huge place, I don't believe that it could be made from a big bang. How could such a spectacular scene be made from just coincidence. Second and lastly, the nature and mindset of humans is made so that there has to be a God. From the basis of every culture, there is a God. We live our lives for what purpose? That is the reason why we search for a god; to find more purpose in living out a life.

[Vergil]

I'm not willing to write off the idea of God until there is proof of his existance or otherwise. The one thing I am against is religion, as you cannot learn everything there is about life from one book. However that is besides the point. If God does exist I doubt it is the kind loving one some people are expecting. I envisage a guy in a leather jacket smoking some sort of substance.

[therealultimatepower]

blacklusterseph004 , there are several problems with your argument.
1) Sure, the chances of life on a planet is small, but there is something called the Law of Large Numbers. Anything is possible when given an eternity for it to happen. The universe has been around for who knows how long. It's plenty of time for 1 or 100 or 1000 habitable planets to form. According to the Drake Equation, there may even be planets that support life just as or more intelligent than us.

2) Out planet has been bombarded by meteorites in the past. How else do you think the dinosaurs got wiped out? PLus there was the Tunguska impact back in 1908. The uiniverse is a big place. It is unlikely that we'll get hit by an armageddon meteor, but not impossible.

Megawhatever, your argument is worse. I suggest you take a remedial course in basic biology. And second, how is the world and your body perfect? We get old, some people are blind, some people have heart disease, some people get cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, the list can go on. I don't see where you get the idea that we live anywhere NEAR perfect. Third, cultures have gods because deities were a way of explaining how things worked. If there was rain, they attribute it to a rain god. With the advent of science and reason, we have no need for superstition and myths. Now take an atheist state like China. Will the world's largest population all go to hell because they don't believe in the Lord? Is that perfection?

[megawhatever]

I don't expect everyone to believe for the same reasons I do but...you still haven't answered my last question. What is the purpose of your life in this world? Earthquakes, tornadoes, disasters, and diseases are all ways of controlling population. If everyone could live forever, imagine how many people there would be. This world is created so that we can choose to believe God or as many atheist would say it: "The purpose of life is to enjoy it as much as we can."

[Nazareth]

Even if the universe is a huge place, I don't believe that it could be made from a big bang.

megawhatever, Im on your side, I believe in God im a Christian and all that, but that is the most ignorent thing a christian could say. Theres proof of the big bang everywhere, you can actually see effects of it through some telescopes. Im pretty sure that might have been how God created the universe. And if people dont believe in God becuase of evolution and that stuff, maybe thats just how God made us, through evolution. Makes sense to me.

Realultimatepower, meteors are actually kinda interesting. Where our earth is placed major meteors miss us all the time. If the earth was slightly moved we would be done for real fast. I think its interesting that were barely clear of literally hundreds of meteors that could destroy us only by a very short distance. I know thats not really proof for God and its not going to convince anyone but it is interesting.

[Nybarius]

Nazareth: How short was this "short distance", exactly?

[Nazareth]

To be honest im not sure. I was watching a video on it on the history channel. My guess is probably miles upon miles upon miles, but in space and our gravitational pull it does see ma little scary. But keep in mind im not 100% positive on the exact distance.

[therealultimatepower]

Megawhatever, what makes you think there is any purpose to life?

If earthquakes, tornadoes, disasters, and diseases are all ways of controlling population, then how the hell is this a perfect arrangement?

Nazareth, it seems like we miss all the meteors because any meteor that can hit us probably already has. That's why it looks like we have a clear path. Our planet just plowed through them.

[Nazareth]

Megawhatever, what makes you think there is any purpose to life?

If earthquakes, tornadoes, disasters, and diseases are all ways of controlling population, then how the hell is this a perfect arrangement?

Nazareth, it seems like we miss all the meteors because any meteor that can hit us probably already has. That's why it looks like we have a clear path. Our planet just plowed through them.

I know, I just think its funny how close some of these meteors come so close to destroying us but dont. Anywho, I think your purpose in life is all what you make it out to be. For example, I think my purpose in life is to serve God because im called to do that. But I think that might only be my purpose becuase of what I believe. If you dont believe the same thing as I do your purpose is different (duh). As far as purpose in life goes, I think life is more meaning ful to serve something thats greater then you and loves you. It makes life seem so much better then just living and serving yourself (I know from experience). I know a lot of people disagree with me on that but thats just what I think. Megawhatever, natural disasters are just things that happen.

There really is no reason for them. Its actually funny becuase a lot of disasters like that are from things we do like polution, messing up the o-zone, stuff like that. Its just us messing up our own world imo. I'v said that before and then other people ask why God would let something like that happen to us. Well a lot of stuff we do to the enviroment God says not to do in the bible. but we do it anyway and since were knida dissoeying him, were paying the price. But thats just what I think.

[therealultimatepower]

Well, I highly doubt most people would choose a life of servitude for a master. And how are you so sure God loves you? People usually aren't servants willingly. Either they need the money, are born into a cr@ppy caste, or something. Maybe you are just serving him for brownie points into heaven?

Personally, I don't believe I have a grand purpose or true calling in life. I live just fine.

Natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis cannot be attributed by man's interference with nature. You can possibly blame things like hurricanes on global warming. And I don't think the Bible mentions anything about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

[OtacontheOtaku]

Hm. OtacontheOtaku, I really appreciate seeing such a polished post as the one you made earlier in this thread--I mean, a Narutofan post with footnotes; I barely managed to scrawl my John Hancock in crayon on some of my college term papers!--however, I'm afraid I think the "divine magnetism" you subscribe to is utter hogwash. I didn't follow the links, nor did I go in depth, but from your brief description it's already fishy enough to merit an express trip to the trashcan of any patent office, due to its contradiction of some very well established laws of physics and such. Also, the appeal to authority--wow, EINSTEIN discovered God? Well if anybody can talk to the old bean after our man Moses, it's got to be that gentle genius!!--renders it all the fishier. I'm typing on borrowed time now--just can't pull myself away, yaknow--but let me ask you, would you like to examine the claims of this divine force you are putting forward together? Might be fun to go over, and also I'd be fulfilling a CSICOP (http://csicop.org/si)membership requirements.

I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted my earlier comments. I wasn't saying he "discovered" God, nor did I say anywhere he spoke to God (a man named Moses didn't exist by the way :P ). During his study of the effects of mangetism on human organ functions, he found the magnets were being repelled by an, at the time, unknown force. Upon further inspection, this force was found to be a collection of the same quantum energy that causes cold-fusion in atoms. However, it's been stated by Dr. Sciter Atlikes that this quantam energy inhabits more than more dimension, particularly having a strong concentration within the 4th and 5th. I've heard Atlikes research challenged however, stating that the energy endures some form of translation through the 4th dimension (Time). Since time is surmised to be comprised so sub-atomic particles much like atoms, this would make sense seeing as the energy would double back on itself, lending itself back to the theory of energy never having been created or destroyed, it always was. This could be interpreted as a "God-force". This of course is free of any kind of contradiction of modern laws of physics. But yes, if you're interested, it would be great to have someone to further research with. For the membership, I've personally never been that enthrawled with the paranormal, Chaos theory along with magnetic theory would definitely explain a great deal of phenomena like ghost claims.

[Nazareth]

Well, I highly doubt most people would choose a life of servitude for a master. And how are you so sure God loves you? People usually aren't servants willingly. Either they need the money, are born into a cr@ppy caste, or something. Maybe you are just serving him for brownie points into heaven?

Personally, I don't believe I have a grand purpose or true calling in life. I live just fine.

Natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis cannot be attributed by man's interference with nature. You can possibly blame things like hurricanes on global warming. And I don't think the Bible mentions anything about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

You make it sound like serving God is like a bad thing. Well its not trust me. Anyway, I serve God becuase I choose to and becuase I think im called to do so. If you dont htink God is a loving God maybe you havent read the bible or something. God is very loving, and if hes not so loving why would he even create us in the first place? To mess with us? To torture us? Come on, I think God is a little more mature then that. It is ture however, that many people just turn to God when they are in trouble, then when they're out of trouble they dont need him anymore. Im not sure if people like that really are christians or not. Thats not for me to judge though.

I especially like heaven comment. Are people serving God just so they can get into heaven if there is a place or are they serving God becuase they love him? I asked myself that a while ago and I serve him becuase I love him and I know he loves me too. I know he loves me becuase hes blessed me with more things then I need and want.

I think everyone has a purpose in life, like a calling. But if you dont think you do you are entitled to yuor opinion. Also about the disasters and what not. Your right, the bible doesnt specifically say green houses are bad and dont do this and that, but it does give hints to those type of things which I think is interesting.

[therealultimatepower]

WHy wouldn't we be God's little play things? In many religions people are just toys for deities. Take the Greek Gods for example, we were just a big soap opera to them. THe Christian God is a loner, so imagine we would just be his SIMS game while he chills in on a SAturday night while eating Cheetos.

[Nazareth]

WHy wouldn't we be God's little play things? In many religions people are just toys for deities. Take the Greek Gods for example, we were just a big soap opera to them. THe Christian God is a loner, so imagine we would just be his SIMS game while he chills in on a SAturday night while eating Cheetos.

Haha. For all we know we could be Gods little play things, but im convinced we arent. The problem with the christian God playing with us like sims is Jesus. I dont think we would be little play things to GOd if he sent his son done and sacraficed him for us. I dont think he would sacrafice his son just for his little play toys.

[NeophyteNihilist]

You make it sound like serving God is like a bad thing. Well its not trust me. Anyway, I serve God becuase I choose to and becuase I think im called to do so. If you dont htink God is a loving God maybe you havent read the bible or something. God is very loving, and if hes not so loving why would he even create us in the first place? To mess with us? To torture us? Come on, I think God is a little more mature then that. It is ture however, that many people just turn to God when they are in trouble, then when they're out of trouble they dont need him anymore. Im not sure if people like that really are christians or not. Thats not for me to judge though.
If God loved us so much he would have never created us. Just by putting us on this world he gave us a chance to end up in eternal tourture. On top of that, he makes thousands of sinful temptations to help us on our way to hell. I'd have been better off if I was aborted, then I'd be in heaven now, instead of slowly damning myself! Also, one would think God would have given us some updated guildlines, instead of forcing us to rely on terribly outdated guildlines. As far as serving God goes, I haven't found any joy in worship the Catholic God since I started thinking about the religion and its shortcomings.

Also, someone mentioned that a person who thinks God doesn't love us hasn't read the Bible. I have read just about all of the Bible and that only made it harder to believe God loves us as much as the church says, especially reading the Old Testement. The Old Testement is basically all God smiting people and leading his army (Israel) to slaughter nearby kingdoms. God actually orders that the Isrealites kill all the people in the cities they conquer, including the elderly and children. When they don't kill everyone, God smites some of them. That's not being loving! That's sadistic. However, most of the New Testement is better (though not flawless) and does portray God as all loving, but God goes right back in to hyper-brutality mode in the Book of Revelations.

[Nazareth]

If God loved us so much he would have never created us. Just by putting us on this world he gave us a chance to end up in eternal tourture. On top of that, he makes thousands of sinful temptations to help us on our way to hell. I'd have been better off if I was aborted, then I'd be in heaven now, instead of slowly damning myself! Also, one would think God would have given us some updated guildlines, instead of forcing us to rely on terribly outdated guildlines. As far as serving God goes, I haven't found any joy in worship the Catholic God since I started thinking about the religion and its shortcomings.

Also, someone mentioned that a person who thinks God doesn't love us hasn't read the Bible. I have read just about all of the Bible and that only made it harder to believe God loves us as much as the church says, especially reading the Old Testement. The Old Testement is basically all God smiting people and leading his army (Israel) to slaughter nearby kingdoms. God actually orders that the Isrealites kill all the people in the cities they conquer, including the elderly and children. When they don't kill everyone, God smites some of them. That's not being loving! That's sadistic. However, most of the New Testement is better (though not flawless) and does portray God as all loving, but God goes right back in to hyper-brutality mode in the Book of Revelations.

If you really have read the bible your not reading it hard enough. If you are reading it then you might have realized that the old testiment isnt really in effect anymore becuase of the new testament. The reason GOd went off and killed people is because we are stupid. God tells us not to do things and we do them any way. Everything we did back then that god told us not to do, he told us not to do it for a reason. And when we did it anyway we got punished. You would also know, if you read the bible, that life was supposed to be perfect but adam and eve kinda screwed things up making things harder for humans. Thats a perfect example of GOd telling us not to do something and us doing it anyway. About revelations, thats the end of the world, things will get a little brutal, but all God is really doing is taking everyone that believes in him to heaven. Satan is the one creating all the havac in revelations.

[OtacontheOtaku]

If you really have read the bible your not reading it hard enough. If you are reading it then you might have realized that the old testiment isnt really in effect anymore becuase of the new testament. The reason GOd went off and killed people is because we are stupid. God tells us not to do things and we do them any way. Everything we did back then that god told us not to do, he told us not to do it for a reason. And when we did it anyway we got punished. You would also know, if you read the bible, that life was supposed to be perfect but adam and eve kinda screwed things up making things harder for humans. Thats a perfect example of GOd telling us not to do something and us doing it anyway. About revelations, thats the end of the world, things will get a little brutal, but all God is really doing is taking everyone that believes in him to heaven. Satan is the one creating all the havac in revelations.

I truthfully and honestly despise most of the Bible because of the fact that it promotes complete and total idiocy and ignorance amoung the world's people. The Old Testament is a misogynistic, carefully constructed half-truth based off of stories from Ancient Sumeria. The New Testament is similar, but there's the distinct possibility of it being a giant fable, since Jesus is never mentioned outside of the Bible in any ancient texts by the two most well-respected scholars at that time, Josephus and Phylo (though it's been surmised that Phylo mentions Jesus, but the portion found menitioning Jesus was found to have been created in the 1300s by hoaxers). "The Rapture" actually isn't in the Bible, the theory was created in the 1800s by a gentleman who's name escapes me. What's not very well known, is that Revelations wasn't a prediction, but actually a series of letters written in the "Apocalyptic" style of writing (hence the term "Apocolypse"). St. John was trying to give the worshipers in Rome hope through a code that Romans weren't able to decipher, as the Romans were persecuting Christians all throughout their empire. As far as "Adam and Eve" go, that isn't how the story (and yes, it IS a story) goes. "God" didn't kill people. The God of the Old Testament goes by three main names, these being "Elohim", "El-Shaddai", and "Yaweh". "Elohim" in it's properly translated form means "Lofty Ones", in it's unaltered semitic form it means "Gods" ("El" is the singular of God), and the intentionaly mistranslated form is "God". Next comes "El-Shaddai", literally meaning "Great Vindicator", this same name is what the Sumerian god Enlil was also known by. Finally you have "Yaweh", now on the mount Moses spoke to a burning bush, a burning bush was one of the original symbols Enki was known by. Now when Moses came down from the Mount, he saw that the people were worshipping a golden bull/calf and he became furious. The reason behind this is that Enlil's symbol was that of a gold bull/calf (actually a symbol stolen from Enki then later stolen by Adad). He was angry because the people were falling back into their old forms of worship. I should note that in the times chronicled by the Bible, monotheism didn't exist. The Hebrews also had their own Pantheon (heiarchy of the Gods). It should be noted that the first commandment of the ten commandments states that "You shall have no other god before me" This statement clearly implies you can worship whatever the hell you want as long as you don't create idols and keep Yaweh as your first God. I should also point out that the name of Yaweh didn't exist before the cannonizing of the Bible and was almost definitely created by the Biblical patriarchs who put the Bible together.

[Nazareth]

I truthfully and honestly despise most of the Bible because of the fact that it promotes complete and total idiocy and ignorance amoung the world's people. The Old Testament is a misogynistic, carefully constructed half-truth based off of stories from Ancient Sumeria. The New Testament is similar, but there's the distinct possibility of it being a giant fable, since Jesus is never mentioned outside of the Bible in any ancient texts by the two most well-respected scholars at that time, Josephus and Phylo (though it's been surmised that Phylo mentions Jesus, but the portion found menitioning Jesus was found to have been created in the 1300s by hoaxers). "The Rapture" actually isn't in the Bible, the theory was created in the 1800s by a gentleman who's name escapes me. What's not very well known, is that Revelations wasn't a prediction, but actually a series of letters written in the "Apocalyptic" style of writing (hence the term "Apocolypse"). St. John was trying to give the worshipers in Rome hope through a code that Romans weren't able to decipher, as the Romans were persecuting Christians all throughout their empire. As far as "Adam and Eve" go, that isn't how the story (and yes, it IS a story) goes. "God" didn't kill people. The God of the Old Testament goes by three main names, these being "Elohim", "El-Shaddai", and "Yaweh". "Elohim" in it's properly translated form means "Lofty Ones", in it's unaltered semitic form it means "Gods" ("El" is the singular of God), and the intentionaly mistranslated form is "God". Next comes "El-Shaddai", literally meaning "Great Vindicator", this same name is what the Sumerian god Enlil was also known by. Finally you have "Yaweh", now on the mount Moses spoke to a burning bush, a burning bush was one of the original symbols Enki was known by. Now when Moses came down from the Mount, he saw that the people were worshipping a golden bull/calf and he became furious. The reason behind this is that Enlil's symbol was that of a gold bull/calf (actually a symbol stolen from Enki then later stolen by Adad). He was angry because the people were falling back into their old forms of worship. I should note that in the times chronicled by the Bible, monotheism didn't exist. The Hebrews also had their own Pantheon (heiarchy of the Gods). It should be noted that the first commandment of the ten commandments states that "You shall have no other god before me" This statement clearly implies you can worship whatever the hell you want as long as you don't create idols and keep Yaweh as your first God. I should also point out that the name of Yaweh didn't exist before the cannonizing of the Bible and was almost definitely created by the Biblical patriarchs who put the Bible together.


Im very pleased to see that you actually know the bible a little. Most atheists dont even know whats in the bible, so the fact that you do is cool. Jesus being a fable is not very well supported. Its not true that the only documents that talk about jesus is the bible, there are lots of other documents that talk about jesus from i think the roman empire.

I was really excited when you mentioned how revelations are actually letters to churches becuase most christians I know dont even know that. The reason people believe in the rapture is becuase in revelations it says "....the things that must soon take place....' 'blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of thr prophecy and heed the things which aree written in it; for the time is near.' Im pretty sure thats where the idea of a rapture came from. Whether or not it will happen, I dont know, but thats not relevant to what I believe.

When God said thou shall not have any Gods before me, he meant idoletry. He doesnt want us to be worshiping anything more then him. About the name thing, I know nothing about that so ill research it a little and post what ithink about it when I read it.

[KazeYama]

God doesn't exist because I havn't killed it yet. Jesus existed but he wasn't God he was a man with ambition and a possible superiority complex. If Jesus was a man than that means other humans have the power to attain a godlike presence and that eliminates the presence of an all powerful ruler. If he was God then that means he can't die because he is all powerful and a God can't be killed. That is the basic Muslim and maybe the Jewish counter to why Jesus doesn't exist.

As for God in general, yes he exists as a figment of the mind and a vapid transfixtion on the weakness of human nature. (go go vocabulary I dont think I used right). God acts as a personal sheild against human flaw and error so we can always look up to the "higher" power and ask for forgiveness. I think people should believe in themselves and believe in each other, we should shoulder our own responsibilities as humans and doing anything less than that is a weakness.

God was created as a way to blame things on others. War, famine, disease, poverty, all could be blamed on the cruel and unjust god in the old days. Now we have softened that image and god is kind and compassionate because we need support from someone or something to reassure us we arn't all that bad. God lets you start over on life. Forgiveness of sins and everlasting happiness. The day god is killed and we understand that we have the power to change our world and we finally take responsibilty for our actions is the day I will truly believe in the human race.

So does god exist? Yes absolutely he exists and countless others exist like him because humans are savage weak delusional creatures who have no focus in life. If god gives you a focus that is fine but you are still clinging to some fragment of doubt that you can function on your own and act as a true individual.

[Nazareth]

God doesn't exist because I havn't killed it yet. Jesus existed but he wasn't God he was a man with ambition and a possible superiority complex. If Jesus was a man than that means other humans have the power to attain a godlike presence and that eliminates the presence of an all powerful ruler. If he was God then that means he can't die because he is all powerful and a God can't be killed. That is the basic Muslim and maybe the Jewish counter to why Jesus doesn't exist.

As for God in general, yes he exists as a figment of the mind and a vapid transfixtion on the weakness of human nature. (go go vocabulary I dont think I used right). God acts as a personal sheild against human flaw and error so we can always look up to the "higher" power and ask for forgiveness. I think people should believe in themselves and believe in each other, we should shoulder our own responsibilities as humans and doing anything less than that is a weakness.

God was created as a way to blame things on others. War, famine, disease, poverty, all could be blamed on the cruel and unjust god in the old days. Now we have softened that image and god is kind and compassionate because we need support from someone or something to reassure us we arn't all that bad. God lets you start over on life. Forgiveness of sins and everlasting happiness. The day god is killed and we understand that we have the power to change our world and we finally take responsibilty for our actions is the day I will truly believe in the human race.

So does god exist? Yes absolutely he exists and countless others exist like him because humans are savage weak delusional creatures who have no focus in life. If god gives you a focus that is fine but you are still clinging to some fragment of doubt that you can function on your own and act as a true individual.

Thats a pretty bad counter to be honest. The reason Jesus was sent here was to be killed. He died for our sins, and God killed him off for that reason. God let him die. If God was created to blame things on then why dont christians blame war on God right now? And if we have softened the image it wasnt so that we wouldnt seem like bad people. We are bad people by nature, nothings going to change that, even changing our view on God. And about the last thing you said, I see it the other way around. You make it sound like as a christian we arent much of individuals. Well I can tell you from expirience that not being a christian makes you less of an individual, your just like the rest of the world without God. But thats just my opinion.

[KazeYama]

Well Jesus and God are said to be one and the same and since god is supposedly all powerful he cannot die, yet if God kills Jesus then Jesus was a man not a God. So the other monotheistic religions see Christianity as contradictory to their definition of God. Also some Christians may blame war on god still but as I said before more people are believing that humanity is to be blamed for war because in this day and age the church isn't crusading everywhere and the old testament god is out the window.

You seem to misunderstand that before people's problems were blamed on god and now people's problems are blamed on themselves but god still provides a way to absolve yourself from wrongdoings. People shouldn't have to rely on someone or something supernatural just to justify existence and shift responsbility off of themselves.

My main problem is reliance on a god and that creates weakness in my mind. Humans can become better and stronger if they stop relying on a god and take all responsibilty on themselves. You shouldn't be forgiven for your mistakes by some omnipotent force when the results and effects of said mistakes are still present. I'm not going to murder someone and watch his family grieve and then think to myself "Oh god will forgive me it will be alright in the end". Some extreme Christians took matters into their own hands and punished themselves physically for their own mistakes. While the flagellists were an extreme case it still demonstrates how people should not rely on god for forgiveness and should be responsible enough to atone for some way in blood, sweat, tears or otherwise, this new god of the 21st century abandons all notions of self control and responsibilty because of the promise of forgiveness and everlasting life.

The old god of fire and brimstone was better as it made people not rely on god for forgiveness but rely on themselves so as not to make mistakes in the first place.

[Nazareth]

Well Jesus and God are said to be one and the same and since god is supposedly all powerful he cannot die, yet if God kills Jesus then Jesus was a man not a God. So the other monotheistic religions see Christianity as contradictory to their definition of God. Also some Christians may blame war on god still but as I said before more people are believing that humanity is to be blamed for war because in this day and age the church isn't crusading everywhere and the old testament god is out the window.

You seem to misunderstand that before people's problems were blamed on god and now people's problems are blamed on themselves but god still provides a way to absolve yourself from wrongdoings. People shouldn't have to rely on someone or something supernatural just to justify existence and shift responsbility off of themselves.

My main problem is reliance on a god and that creates weakness in my mind. Humans can become better and stronger if they stop relying on a god and take all responsibilty on themselves. You shouldn't be forgiven for your mistakes by some omnipotent force when the results and effects of said mistakes are still present. I'm not going to murder someone and watch his family grieve and then think to myself "Oh god will forgive me it will be alright in the end". Some extreme Christians took matters into their own hands and punished themselves physically for their own mistakes. While the flagellists were an extreme case it still demonstrates how people should not rely on god for forgiveness and should be responsible enough to atone for some way in blood, sweat, tears or otherwise, this new god of the 21st century abandons all notions of self control and responsibilty because of the promise of forgiveness and everlasting life.

The old god of fire and brimstone was better as it made people not rely on god for forgiveness but rely on themselves so as not to make mistakes in the first place.

When jesus died on the cross God let him die. God is all powerful and seeing as how he is all powerfull, im pretty sure he could kill his son right? Your absolutly right in one point though. You make it sound like you think christians need to take more responibility for their actions ann face the consequences rather then just blowing things off saying GOd will forgive you. I do think that God will forgive you if you ask for forgiveness but that doesnt mean that you dont have to face the consequences. Say like I kill a guy. I could ask God for forgivness, and he will forgive me but that doesnt mean I dont face the music. Christian or not, your still going to have to face th music. I also agree we should rely on ourselves not to mess up but lets face it, were human we are going to mess up and when we do at least we can ask for forgivness.

[skunkworks]

I truthfully and honestly despise most of the Bible because of the fact that it promotes complete and total idiocy and ignorance amoung the world's people. The Old Testament is a misogynistic, carefully constructed half-truth based off of stories from Ancient Sumeria. The New Testament is similar, but there's the distinct possibility of it being a giant fable, since Jesus is never mentioned outside of the Bible in any ancient texts by the two most well-respected scholars at that time, Josephus and Phylo (though it's been surmised that Phylo mentions Jesus, but the portion found menitioning Jesus was found to have been created in the 1300s by hoaxers). "The Rapture" actually isn't in the Bible, the theory was created in the 1800s by a gentleman who's name escapes me. What's not very well known, is that Revelations wasn't a prediction, but actually a series of letters written in the "Apocalyptic" style of writing (hence the term "Apocolypse"). St. John was trying to give the worshipers in Rome hope through a code that Romans weren't able to decipher, as the Romans were persecuting Christians all throughout their empire. As far as "Adam and Eve" go, that isn't how the story (and yes, it IS a story) goes. "God" didn't kill people. The God of the Old Testament goes by three main names, these being "Elohim", "El-Shaddai", and "Yaweh". "Elohim" in it's properly translated form means "Lofty Ones", in it's unaltered semitic form it means "Gods" ("El" is the singular of God), and the intentionaly mistranslated form is "God". Next comes "El-Shaddai", literally meaning "Great Vindicator", this same name is what the Sumerian god Enlil was also known by. Finally you have "Yaweh", now on the mount Moses spoke to a burning bush, a burning bush was one of the original symbols Enki was known by. Now when Moses came down from the Mount, he saw that the people were worshipping a golden bull/calf and he became furious. The reason behind this is that Enlil's symbol was that of a gold bull/calf (actually a symbol stolen from Enki then later stolen by Adad). He was angry because the people were falling back into their old forms of worship. I should note that in the times chronicled by the Bible, monotheism didn't exist. The Hebrews also had their own Pantheon (heiarchy of the Gods). It should be noted that the first commandment of the ten commandments states that "You shall have no other god before me" This statement clearly implies you can worship whatever the hell you want as long as you don't create idols and keep Yaweh as your first God. I should also point out that the name of Yaweh didn't exist before the cannonizing of the Bible and was almost definitely created by the Biblical patriarchs who put the Bible together.

The Old Testament is not misogynistic. If you truly study the Torah in-depth you'll see that women played a role in the developement of Judaism and Israel. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was considered to be a greater prophet than Abraham.

When the Jews worshipped the Golden Calf in the desert, the women refused to participate. And when the 12 spies brought back word that the land of Israel was populated by giants, the men cried and wanted to return to Egypt. The women did not. As a result, the men were punished with death in the desert, and the women merited to enter the Land of Israel.

s far as "Adam and Eve" go, that isn't how the story (and yes, it IS a story) goes. "God" didn't kill people. The God of the Old Testament goes by three main names, these being "Elohim", "El-Shaddai", and "Yaweh". "Elohim" in it's properly translated form means "Lofty Ones", in it's unaltered semitic form it means "Gods" ("El" is the singular of God), and the intentionaly mistranslated form is "God". Next comes "El-Shaddai", literally meaning "Great Vindicator", this same name is what the Sumerian god Enlil was also known by. Finally you have "Yaweh", now on the mount Moses spoke to a burning bush, a burning bush was one of the original symbols Enki was known by.

A common name of God in the Hebrew Bible is Elohim (Hebrew: אלהים); as opposed to other names mentioned in this article, this name also describes gods of other religions.

Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God is grammatically singular, and regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible. It is argued that the word elohim had an origin in a plural grammatical form. When the Hebrew Bible uses elohim not in reference to God, it usually takes plural forms of the verb (for example, Exodus 20:3). There are a few other such uses in Hebrew, for example Behemoth.

Other scholars interpret the -im ending as an expression of majesty (pluralis majestatis) or excellence (pluralis excellentiae), expressing high dignity or greatness: compare with the similar use of plurals of ba`al (master) and adon (lord). For these reasons many Christians cite the apparent plurality of elohim as evidence for the basic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This was a traditional position but modern Christian theologians now largely accept that this is an exegetical fallacy.

Theologians who dispute this claim, cite the hypothesis that plurals of majesty came about in more modern times. Richard Toporoski, a classics scholar, asserts that plurals of majesty first appeared in the reign of Diocletian (284-305 CE)1. Indeed, Gesenius states in his book Hebrew Grammar 2 the following:

The Jewish grammarians call such plurals … plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (compare 1 Maccabees 10:19 and 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7; Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way). It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels: so at all events in Isaiah 6:8 and Genesis 3:22), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied. It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew.

The plural form ending in -im can also be understood as denoting abstraction, as in the Hebrew words chayyim: "life" or betulim: "virginity". If understood this way Elohim means "divinity" or "deity". The word chayyim is similarly syntactically singular when used as a name but syntactically plural otherwise.

The Hebrew form Eloah (אלוה, which looks as though it might be a singular form of Elohim) is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in the Book of Job, 41 times). What is probably the same divine name is found in Arabic (Ilah as singular "a god", as opposed to Allah meaning "The God" or "God") and in Aramaic (Elaha). This unusual singular form is used in six places for heathen deities (examples: 2 Chronicles 32:15; Daniel 11:37, 38). The normal Elohim form is also used in the plural a few times, either for gods or images (Exodus 9:1, 12:12, 20:3; and so forth) or for one god (Exodus 32:1; Genesis 31:30, 32; and elsewhere). In the great majority of cases both are used as names of the one God of Israel.

The root-meaning of the word is unknown. One theory is that it may be connected with the old Arabic verb alih (to be perplexed, afraid; to seek refuge because of fear). Eloah, Elohim, would, therefore, be "He who is the object of fear or reverence," or "He with whom one who is afraid takes refuge".

In many of the passages in which Elohim occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities, or in some instances to powerful men (Genesis 3:5), to judges (Exodus 21:6), or to Israel (Psalms 81:9, 82:6).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

[OtacontheOtaku]

The Old Testament is not misogynistic. If you truly study the Torah in-depth you'll see that women played a role in the developement of Judaism and Israel. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was considered to be a greater prophet than Abraham.

When the Jews worshipped the Golden Calf in the desert, the women refused to participate. And when the 12 spies brought back word that the land of Israel was populated by giants, the men cried and wanted to return to Egypt. The women did not. As a result, the men were punished with death in the desert, and the women merited to enter the Land of Israel.



A common name of God in the Hebrew Bible is Elohim (Hebrew: אלהים); as opposed to other names mentioned in this article, this name also describes gods of other religions.

Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God is grammatically singular, and regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible. It is argued that the word elohim had an origin in a plural grammatical form. When the Hebrew Bible uses elohim not in reference to God, it usually takes plural forms of the verb (for example, Exodus 20:3). There are a few other such uses in Hebrew, for example Behemoth.

Other scholars interpret the -im ending as an expression of majesty (pluralis majestatis) or excellence (pluralis excellentiae), expressing high dignity or greatness: compare with the similar use of plurals of ba`al (master) and adon (lord). For these reasons many Christians cite the apparent plurality of elohim as evidence for the basic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This was a traditional position but modern Christian theologians now largely accept that this is an exegetical fallacy.

Theologians who dispute this claim, cite the hypothesis that plurals of majesty came about in more modern times. Richard Toporoski, a classics scholar, asserts that plurals of majesty first appeared in the reign of Diocletian (284-305 CE)1. Indeed, Gesenius states in his book Hebrew Grammar 2 the following:

The Jewish grammarians call such plurals … plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (compare 1 Maccabees 10:19 and 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7; Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way). It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels: so at all events in Isaiah 6:8 and Genesis 3:22), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied. It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew.

The plural form ending in -im can also be understood as denoting abstraction, as in the Hebrew words chayyim: "life" or betulim: "virginity". If understood this way Elohim means "divinity" or "deity". The word chayyim is similarly syntactically singular when used as a name but syntactically plural otherwise.

The Hebrew form Eloah (אלוה, which looks as though it might be a singular form of Elohim) is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in the Book of Job, 41 times). What is probably the same divine name is found in Arabic (Ilah as singular "a god", as opposed to Allah meaning "The God" or "God") and in Aramaic (Elaha). This unusual singular form is used in six places for heathen deities (examples: 2 Chronicles 32:15; Daniel 11:37, 38). The normal Elohim form is also used in the plural a few times, either for gods or images (Exodus 9:1, 12:12, 20:3; and so forth) or for one god (Exodus 32:1; Genesis 31:30, 32; and elsewhere). In the great majority of cases both are used as names of the one God of Israel.

The root-meaning of the word is unknown. One theory is that it may be connected with the old Arabic verb alih (to be perplexed, afraid; to seek refuge because of fear). Eloah, Elohim, would, therefore, be "He who is the object of fear or reverence," or "He with whom one who is afraid takes refuge".

In many of the passages in which Elohim occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities, or in some instances to powerful men (Genesis 3:5), to judges (Exodus 21:6), or to Israel (Psalms 81:9, 82:6).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim


First off, Sarah is only given higher regard than Abraham in the Haggadah, not the Torah. The men feared the Neffilim but the women did not, because the Neffilim had a history of killing men and taking women and having their way with them. The women weren't afraid of death, but that doesn't mean they weren't afraid. Again though, it's only briefly mentioned in the Haggadah that "the women closest to God would not lay eyes on the Golden Idol" - But it doesn't matter either way... the Golden Calf and Moses' God were still just two other ancient gods from Sumeria. Plus, there's very little historical evidence to support the trials and tribulations of the Jews, especially since there's no evidence whatsoever in Egypt that there was ever a large slave population.

Now, when you're studying the effect of certain words, you have to study their roots as well. Most Semitic and Akkadian terms (which comprise the "original" versions of the Torah, Bible, and Quaran) are borrowed from Sumeria, the world's oldest recognized civilization. The term "Elohim" is the plural form of "El" not "Eloah" as "Eloah" is used in other ancient semitic writings to refer to the clergy or "ones close to God". Now in ancient Sumeria, there was actually no word for "God", only descriptive terms that implied god-like status. That word is "El", and means "A lofty one" and the plural of which being "Eloheem" meaning "lofty ones". This of course makes sense seeing as how ancient Sumerians described their "Gods" as descending from an unknown heavenly body in space called "Nibiru" or "Heaven from which the Gods descended". As far as it referring to "other-deities", the term Elohim is translated as "master" and obeying that master or working for that master's ends, an obvious allusion to working for your heiarchy, up to god, supporting the already obvious fact that monotheism didn't exist in the ancient world. This is reflected in the ten commandments when "Yaweh" says to "Not have any other Gods before me" - as I pointed out, this clearly shows that a Pantheon was okay, but Yaweh was claiming himself as the supreme God of the Hebrew pantheon. The name Yaweh is actually not mentioned in any ancient Hebrew texts, leading scholars to believe Yaweh was added later to conceal the extreme simularities of Yaweh and Enki.

So as far as roots go, Arabic would actually be going in the wrong direction as the Semitic Hebrew tongue predates Arabic (which is mostly derived from Akkadian with large Hebrew influences, Aramaic is also an Akkadian tongue adopted by many people, particularly that of the Nefilim) by a couple thousand years. However, Sumerian is the most ancient language we know, predating any of the Semitic or Akkadian tongues.

[skunkworks]

This is reflected in the ten commandments when "Yaweh" says to "Not have any other Gods before me" - as I pointed out, this clearly shows that a Pantheon was okay, but Yaweh was claiming himself as the supreme God of the Hebrew pantheon.

http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandment_02.gif

Before me doesn't refer to heirarchy. In Hebrew it's translated to Beside my face. Since god is omnipotent, it basically means gods could be referring to the deities that were already "existing", and the potential false gods. God isn't jealous because of the other gods, it's a jealousy resulting from neglect.

[OtacontheOtaku]

http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandment_02.gif

Before me doesn't refer to heirarchy. In Hebrew it's translated to Beside my face. Since god is omnipotent, it basically means gods could be referring to the deities that were already "existing", and the potential false gods. God isn't jealous because of the other gods, it's a jealousy resulting from neglect.

Well, the confusion errupting from here results in the mixing of the Aramaic with the Hebrew. "al pa nahy" does literally mean beside my face, however this isn't implied literally. The tone of Torah is that of metaphors, which is why "beside my face" is translated into English as "before me". You have to remember, if "Yaweh" were to actually have a face (as is literally put forth here) than that would only go to show this isn't a god of omnipotence, it's one of a physical self that one could make idols of, again reinforcing the "Yaweh is Enki" debate, especially since there's no record of the name Yaweh anywhere in historical texts outside of the Rabinnical texts.

However, if you wanted to go into the literal meaning, it would be speaking of the fact that there should be no Gods beside his face - in other words, on his level. Below still flys with this translation as well. However, "al" is transitional so it could be applied metaphorically or literally. It should also be payed attention to the mention of "Elohim" here as well, since if you were going into the literal meaning, it would be "other beside my face not have shall you to Lofty Ones".


Also, that's one of the main points of the Torah and Bible that make absolutely NO sense. God is supposed to be omnipotent and perfect, yet he constantly becomes jealous and angry, elements we are told are very evil emotions and should be ignored. It's a grand contradiction that makes sense once you understand where the stories in the Torah and Bible come from.

[skunkworks]

Well, the confusion errupting from here results in the mixing of the Aramaic with the Hebrew. "al pa nahy" does literally mean beside my face, however this isn't implied literally. The tone of Torah is that of metaphors, which is why "beside my face" is translated into English as "before me". You have to remember, if "Yaweh" were to actually have a face (as is literally put forth here) than that would only go to show this isn't a god of omnipotence, it's one of a physical self that one could make idols of, again reinforcing the "Yaweh is Enki" debate, especially since there's no record of the name Yaweh anywhere in historical texts outside of the Rabinnical texts.

However, if you wanted to go into the literal meaning, it would be speaking of the fact that there should be no Gods beside his face - in other words, on his level. Below still flys with this translation as well. However, "al" is transitional so it could be applied metaphorically or literally. It should also be payed attention to the mention of "Elohim" here as well, since if you were going into the literal meaning, it would be "other beside my face not have shall you to Lofty Ones".

Also, that's one of the main points of the Torah and Bible that make absolutely NO sense. God is supposed to be omnipotent and perfect, yet he constantly becomes jealous and angry, elements we are told are very evil emotions and should be ignored. It's a grand contradiction that makes sense once you understand where the stories in the Torah and Bible come from.

If I say don't eat crunchy food before me it doesn't mean that I don't want you to eat the food ahead of me, or eat it first, but rather in front me of, for my eyes to witness.

Actually, there are more than 3 in the Torah. And those other variant, I suppose, were dropped because they don't fit any other sect. It seems a bit of a push though. The logic goes like this, as I see it:

1) There was a deity named enlil who was part of a pantheon.
2) There was also a deity of that same pantheon named Enkil.
3) The symbol for Enkil was a burning bush.
4) The symbol for Enlil was a cow.
5) Therefore any religion that uses either symbol derived from those archetypes.

The problem:
A) G-d did not manifest as a bush, and nor is a burning bush representative of G-d in Judaism. However, if he wanted to be consistant, then Enkil should also include a cloud of smoke, and a pillar of fire (sans bush) as well. But it doesn't.
B) G-d is not represented as a cow. It was an abomination to do so. The fact that people did so does not mean that they considered G-d as Enlil. In fact, can you name all of the deities of the ancient religions that used a cow? The Jews just left Egypt, so why not Isis?

God is omnipotent, but how do you manifest yourself to beings with limited comrehensiblity. Those emotions are in order to have a relationship with us.

[Joutei no Tenshu]

To me, the idea of heaven and hell is an absolutely ludacris proposal. Both conceptions are totally make believe and no more than fairy tales. Hell is there to scare people into believing, and heaven is there to give even more reason to follow the religion.

In believing a religion, such as christianity, a person is giving up many of his or her freedoms. Only through darkness are you truly free.

Many many countless christians have posted on this thread stating they believe because they don't want to burn in hell and do not want to think life is pointless. Although life may be pointless, the mature and wise man can still understand its essence all the while not fearing death. Death should always be on the mind, it's simply a part of life. I do not fear it at all.

A more advanced and CIVILIZED society no longer believes in religions because it no longer needs them to keep peace and order. Our current society as a whole is far from such high standards.

My martial art buddies are going to get a kick out of this thread, because like me, they don't fall for bs.

I apologize if I offended any fairy tale believers. I am not afraid to say what is on my mind. :cool

[OtacontheOtaku]

If I say don't eat crunchy food before me it doesn't mean that I don't want you to eat the food ahead of me, or eat it first, but rather in front me of, for my eyes to witness.

Actually, there are more than 3 in the Torah. And those other variant, I suppose, were dropped because they don't fit any other sect. It seems a bit of a push though. The logic goes like this, as I see it:

1) There was a deity named enlil who was part of a pantheon.
2) There was also a deity of that same pantheon named Enkil.
3) The symbol for Enkil was a burning bush.
4) The symbol for Enlil was a cow.
5) Therefore any religion that uses either symbol derived from those archetypes.

The problem:
A) G-d did not manifest as a bush, and nor is a burning bush representative of G-d in Judaism. However, if he wanted to be consistant, then Enkil should also include a cloud of smoke, and a pillar of fire (sans bush) as well. But it doesn't.
B) G-d is not represented as a cow. It was an abomination to do so. The fact that people did so does not mean that they considered G-d as Enlil. In fact, can you name all of the deities of the ancient religions that used a cow? The Jews just left Egypt, so why not Isis?

God is omnipotent, but how do you manifest yourself to beings with limited comrehensiblity. Those emotions are in order to have a relationship with us.


For your first point, this logic would still imply that God could at some time be unaware of a man's worshipping. However, the phrase is extremely ambiguous and can be taken a number a ways... so I guess it's down to perception of the text =_=;.


1) There was a deity named enlil who was part of a pantheon.
2) There was also a deity of that same pantheon named Enkil.
3) The symbol for Enkil was a burning bush.
4) The symbol for Enlil was a cow.
5) Therefore any religion that uses either symbol derived from those archetypes.

1 - Enlil and Enki take leadership in different pantheons depending on worship
2 - The diety is "Enki" not "Enkil", Enkil is a bastardized translation (the slightly proper for the gentative would be Enkik, but "Enki" is how the name is spoken and written in the romanization)
3 - The symbols for the gods of the old Hebrew pantheons frequently changed, but one of Enki's symbols was in fact a burning bush (one of the main supporting arguements for the Enki is Yaweh debate)
4 - The representative symbol of Enlil was that of a golden calf/bull. However, this was stolen from Enki as chronicled in the Story of Adapa when Enlil is chartered to send a golden bull to make Adapa pay for his misdeeds
5 - This is quite correct, these archetypes are what established Yaweh in the Bible (who's name did not originate from that time).

A) G-d did not manifest as a bush, and nor is a burning bush representative of G-d in Judaism. However, if he wanted to be consistant, then Enkil should also include a cloud of smoke, and a pillar of fire (sans bush) as well. But it doesn't.
B) G-d is not represented as a cow. It was an abomination to do so. The fact that people did so does not mean that they considered G-d as Enlil. In fact, can you name all of the deities of the ancient religions that used a cow? The Jews just left Egypt, so why not Isis?[/I]

A)Yaweh did in fact manifest himself to Moses as a burning bush, check the Parsha. It also mentions this in the Haggadah. Enki's symbols are various, but isn't it interesting that a cloud of smoke and a pillar of water are both associated with a "God that came from the dwelling Nibiru (Heaven) through "space above Tiamat" to "Tiamat" (Sumerian term used for Earth)".

B)True, Yaweh isn't represented as a cow as Enlil stole this designation. Also, it was blasphemy, not an abomination. Isis is actually the Egyptian version of Asherah, Yaweh's consort who was removed from the Rabbinical texts (in another mysoginistic twist). Asherah is descended from Astarte who in turn is descended from the Sumerian goddess of health, vitality, and sciences Ninkhursnag. Asherah's symbol was that of a tree of life, however, Ninkhursnag's was that of a golden calf (though not the bull). Astarte was condemned by Biblical prophets under the name Ashtoreth (Ashtareth;Astaroth), a confusing combination of Astarte and Astoreth that only goes to enhance the confusion set up to discourage the worship of goddesses.

[sadated_peon]

If you really have read the bible your not reading it hard enough. If you are reading it then you might have realized that the old testiment isnt really in effect anymore becuase of the new testament. The reason GOd went off and killed people is because we are stupid. God tells us not to do things and we do them any way. Everything we did back then that god told us not to do, he told us not to do it for a reason. And when we did it anyway we got punished. You would also know, if you read the bible, that life was supposed to be perfect but adam and eve kinda screwed things up making things harder for humans. Thats a perfect example of GOd telling us not to do something and us doing it anyway. About revelations, thats the end of the world, things will get a little brutal, but all God is really doing is taking everyone that believes in him to heaven. Satan is the one creating all the havac in revelations.
I don’t think people did always screw up or did stupid stuff, I think god is wrong, I think the deity written in your bible is a sadistic terrorist.
I agree with adam eating the apple, I think it would have been the greatest decision a human ever made. (though i guess the credit goes to eve, not adam)
Im very pleased to see that you actually know the bible a little. Most atheists dont even know whats in the bible, so the fact that you do is cool. Jesus being a fable is not very well supported. Its not true that the only documents that talk about jesus is the bible, there are lots of other documents that talk about jesus from i think the roman empire.
I actually find the opposite, generally most atheist know more than chritians about the bible. There are no records from the roman empire that prove jesus existed. (Josephus was edited by later christians)

[skunkworks]

What language did Noah supposedly speak?

[OtacontheOtaku]

What language did Noah supposedly speak?

Well, first off, there was never a "Noah", as the time period he existed within was that of Sumeria just starting to branch out. The Noah Flood story almost certainly came from the story of King Utnapishtam who was visited by Enki and told to build a large floating craft to save him from the coming flood that was to drown the wicked beings who were the products of those who mated with the "Elohim" (the Biblical Nefilim). Given this time period, Utnapishtam probobly spoke Sumerian, though it's definitely possible that he could have spoken a version of the Semitic or Akkadian tongues that were just developing. Though, most scholars agree it was Sumerian.


I don’t think people did always screw up or did stupid stuff, I think god is wrong, I think the deity written in your bible is a sadistic terrorist.
I agree with adam eating the apple, I think it would have been the greatest decision a human ever made. (though i guess the credit goes to eve, not adam)

The reason the diety in the Bible comes off as so evil is because it's multiple dieties being portrayed as a singular entity. The "God" of the Old Testament was called "Elohim" plural for God (El being the singular), and Elohim's true meaning being that of "lofty ones". Next is "El-Shaddai" which takes it Semitic roots in the Akkadian term of sadu meaning moutain (the substantiation behind this being that sadu predates the term "shaddai" in the Semitic languages by several hundred years). The term sadu was then coined by the Hebrews as sadeh meaning breast. In other words, El-shaddai can be translated as god of the moutain, or god of the breast. This symbolism could link El-Shaddai with Enki, Enlil, and Astarte (Ishtar, Ashtareth, Ashteroth, Ashtoreth). The next is Yahweh, this name isn't in any historical scriptures, and was almost definitely added later. Hence the sadism and contradictory nature of the God in the Bible and Torah.

I actually find the opposite, generally most atheist know more than chritians about the bible. There are no records from the roman empire that prove jesus existed. (Josephus was edited by later christians)

This is true. There are no records ever even MENTIONING a Jesus (Yeshwah - Joshua) of Nazareth. Josephus was screwed with by later christians, as was Phylo. Both men were found to never have mentioned Jesus in their recordings. This only serves to enhance the point that the John of the Bible was a philosopher who probobly fabricated the story of Jesus, based on the stories of the Egyptian/Sumerian/Semitic/Akkadian/Hittite Gods in order to deliver a message of self-sacrifice and love to the people of that world who were ailing miserably under the thumb of the Roman empire (as what St. John did within Revelations).

[Joutei no Tenshu]

Btw, i've gone to church every sunday of my childhood life and I went to nothing but private schools that all had bible classes. I know the material well and I'm still definitely not a christian.

On a good day in England, 2% of the population goes to church on sunday.
4% Scotland, .5% Sweden, virtually none in France. the list goes on an on.

England's society is considered to be ahead of the US by 40 years.

I live and was born and raised etc in America. I like England though, because I can tell they are pretty smart. In fact, England will proudly admit they are athiest. All christianity has practically left europe. go to a church service there and there will be 4 or 5 people at most.

Americans like being on a high horse and acting like they know everything. They got it all wrong though, there is no god.

[therealultimatepower]

Btw, i've gone to church every sunday of my childhood life and I went to nothing but private schools that all had bible classes. I know the material well and I'm still definitely not a christian.

On a good day in England, 2% of the population goes to church on sunday.
4% Scotland, .5% Sweden, virtually none in France. the list goes on an on.

England's society is considered to be ahead of the US by 40 years.

I live and was born and raised etc in America. I like England though, because I can tell they are pretty smart. In fact, England will proudly admit they are athiest. All christianity has practically left europe. go to a church service there and there will be 4 or 5 people at most.

Americans like being on a high horse and acting like they know everything. They got it all wrong though, there is no god.


That's not entirely fair. The blue states are probably behind by about, 10 years. The red states are behind like, 4000 years.

[Neji_Ivo]

I just think that religion in general is an invention created by people who was trully advanced for their times. Jesus existed for sure, even if it wasn't jesus someone existed and started this story. That person was great for sure, he sacrificed himself to make other people believe that they could do a better world than that barbaric world in which they lived. I don't follow any religion and I don't believe in god. I think religion was important in the past in order to create a more civilized world, but nowadays I think it's something completely out of purpose. People, try to believe in yourself and in your abilities. You don't need anyone to guide you, just don't be a caward and assume everything you do.

P.S. As a portuguese guy, english is not my first language, therefor I apologize for any spelling or grammar mistakes.

[NaRa]

Alright so where should i start.First of all I'm agnostic slightly tilted toward the spiritual way.I believe that there in a sence is a god.Metaphorically hes the one that started the fire.HE didn't feed it and eventually hes not the one whos going to put it out.The human race is entirely acoountable for everymistake they've made.there is no higher power that dictates them when ultimately they make there own decisions.And In my opinion If religion was a result in the wishes of god it was strongly mis interpreted by humans.Why do i think that you ask?Because of the prophets in our history books.If their was on god He would not send so many mixed messages.Islamic/Catholic/Jewish in my opinion is neither right nor wrong.In Many ways they all have taught strong morals into society and the way we live today.but they have also caused confusion.Death.Violence.Everything in the world has a positive and negative effect on something one way or another.we had the spanish inquistion,the halocaust,terrorism,the crusades.My doubts in religion and occasionally god is.would he as a all knowing entity so carelessly try to influence the world into worshipping that would lead into religious persacution(sp?).Of course would he have known that his intent would be so mixed among the so called intelligent species he created.Getting to the point.Yes i believe he created life.No i don't believe he created the human race directly.Because of this belief it s difficult for me to believe that because of our so called intelligence he tried to contact us through his prophets.so in my opinion religion was created by us.on a moral scale yes religion is a good thing for each single person but on a worldly scale is far from good or bad.it has caused just as much bad as it has good

[skunkworks]

Well, first off, there was never a "Noah", as the time period he existed within was that of Sumeria just starting to branch out. The Noah Flood story almost certainly came from the story of King Utnapishtam who was visited by Enki and told to build a large floating craft to save him from the coming flood that was to drown the wicked beings who were the products of those who mated with the "Elohim" (the Biblical Nefilim). Given this time period, Utnapishtam probobly spoke Sumerian, though it's definitely possible that he could have spoken a version of the Semitic or Akkadian tongues that were just developing. Though, most scholars agree it was Sumerian.

The reason the diety in the Bible comes off as so evil is because it's multiple dieties being portrayed as a singular entity. The "God" of the Old Testament was called "Elohim" plural for God (El being the singular), and Elohim's true meaning being that of "lofty ones". Next is "El-Shaddai" which takes it Semitic roots in the Akkadian term of sadu meaning moutain (the substantiation behind this being that sadu predates the term "shaddai" in the Semitic languages by several hundred years). The term sadu was then coined by the Hebrews as sadeh meaning breast. In other words, El-shaddai can be translated as god of the moutain, or god of the breast. This symbolism could link El-Shaddai with Enki, Enlil, and Astarte (Ishtar, Ashtareth, Ashteroth, Ashtoreth). The next is Yahweh, this name isn't in any historical scriptures, and was almost definitely added later. Hence the sadism and contradictory nature of the God in the Bible and Torah.

How do you know that? All the ancient Torahs we got have it in there. You must mean that you teleported back 3500 years, took a look at the original, and then popped back.

Or that because we don't have the original, we cannot prove that it wasn't in there any more than you cannot prove that it wasn't in there.

Un-educated folk think that the "im" ending in Hebrew automatically makes something plural. It does not. Depending on the context the "im" can infer plurality or it can infer majesty. (Majesty as in Queen Elizabeth II calling herself "we.").

Many words in Hebrew end in “im” and are not plural. Some are names, some are just words.

NAMES:

Ephraim (Son of Joseph; Gen 48:5)
Mitsrayim (Son of Ham & Hebrew name of Egypt; Gen 13:10)
Aram-Naharayim (Judges 3:8 )
Cushan-Rishatayim (King of Aram-Naharaiym; Judges 3:8 )
Elyakim (2 Kings 18:18 )
Jehoiachim (King of Judah; 2 Kings 23:34)


WORDS:

Naphtulim (a struggle; Gen 30:Cool
Kadim (east, easterly wind; Exod 10:13)
Aklim (climate; Modern Hebrew)
Panim (face, front side; Ezek 2:10)
Pnim (interior; 1 Kings 6:29)
Tsanim (dried slice of bread; Modern Hebrew)
Tsohorayim (mid-day; 1 Kings 18:26)


Elohim ends with the masculine plural suffix "-ִים"

Elohim can be used to speak of humans, angels or G-d. As I said earlier the "im" ending does not mean pluralality (someone already mentioned to you that G-d refers to Moses as an elohim and last I looked Moses was neither a god or multiple clones).

In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:

It receives a plural suffix;
It receives a plural verb;
It receives a plural adjective.

In Genesis we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים which translates to: "Eloh*m (He) created". Singular, not the plural "they" created ( בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים ). "Eloh*m is used more than 2000 times in the Tanach and almost always has a singular verb.

The adjective is almost always singular, too, where elohim is concerned. . For example: אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous Eloh*m" in Psalm 7:10), and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Eloh*m".

Elohim speaks to the majesty of the entity -- a ruler or judge (HaShem, angels and man) and is used to describe HaShem when He is in a judging or ruling mode (versus say anon*i which speaks of His mercy). The root of the word is eil, which means force.

BTW there are many names for G-d in Torah, but they aren't because there were multiple gods. In Hebrew names speak of attributes. Thus Abram's name is changed to Abraham. Jacob's name is changed to Israel.

G-d has a variety of names based on which attribute we are focusing on (judge, father, forgiving, etc.).

For one thing, the 4-letter name of the Creator is not a name at all, but a glyph with no pronounciation, and thus "Y-way" or whatever is not the same thing. And while there are some relationships between languages, the term Eloh means a "heavenly power" and the "plual" form is not only assigned to the Creator, but to His creations as well, so that is all contextual.

And if we ignore the names and go right to the core of it, intent, if the intent of Judaism is to speak of sole formeless undefinable Creator and uses a name that may or may not be related to another group that taught the opposite, then it would seem that the religion is not derived at all.

[skunkworks]

Well, first off, there was never a "Noah", as the time period he existed within was that of Sumeria just starting to branch out. The Noah Flood story almost certainly came from the story of King Utnapishtam who was visited by Enki and told to build a large floating craft to save him from the coming flood that was to drown the wicked beings who were the products of those who mated with the "Elohim" (the Biblical Nefilim). Given this time period, Utnapishtam probobly spoke Sumerian, though it's definitely possible that he could have spoken a version of the Semitic or Akkadian tongues that were just developing. Though, most scholars agree it was Sumerian.

There are many civilizations that mention a flood in their writings. Do you honestly believe Moses or whoever wrote the Bible borrowed the concept from the Sumerians? Why take a pre-existing story if you're proclaiming that your religion is the truth. Or maybe because it could have happened?

[OtacontheOtaku]

There are many civilizations that mention a flood in their writings. Do you honestly believe Moses or whoever wrote the Bible borrowed the concept from the Sumerians? Why take a pre-existing story if you're proclaiming that your religion is the truth. Or maybe because it could have happened?

How do you know that? All the ancient Torahs we got have it in there. You must mean that you teleported back 3500 years, took a look at the original, and then popped back.

Or that because we don't have the original, we cannot prove that it wasn't in there any more than you cannot prove that it wasn't in there.

Well, my point being these Sumerian tablets that have the story of Utnapishtam predate all copies of the Torah by several thousand years. Sumerian is far far older than Hebrew, and those tablets are far far older than any religious text there is. You are correct that many civilizations write about a flood, however, the story of Utnapishtam is the oldest account of the Deluge in existence.

Sometimes you have to step back and think to yourself, what if the people of those times couldn't comprehend what was happening around them. What if those texts we're reading are telling a different story. Hell, the Haggadah says flat out Adam was covered in a "horny skin" that shone brilliantly. Sometimes, humanity can't handle the truth... and that truth becomes necessary to manipulate when the world would be crushed, just because when you're saying the whole world has been fooled, you're calling the people of the world fools. Not exactly the best position to be in.

Un-educated folk think that the "im" ending in Hebrew automatically makes something plural. It does not. Depending on the context the "im" can infer plurality or it can infer majesty. (Majesty as in Queen Elizabeth II calling herself "we.").

Many words in Hebrew end in “im” and are not plural. Some are names, some are just words.

NAMES:

Ephraim (Son of Joseph; Gen 48:5)
Mitsrayim (Son of Ham & Hebrew name of Egypt; Gen 13:10)
Aram-Naharayim (Judges 3:8 )
Cushan-Rishatayim (King of Aram-Naharaiym; Judges 3:8 )
Elyakim (2 Kings 18:18 )
Jehoiachim (King of Judah; 2 Kings 23:34)


WORDS:

Naphtulim (a struggle; Gen 30:Cool
Kadim (east, easterly wind; Exod 10:13)
Aklim (climate; Modern Hebrew)
Panim (face, front side; Ezek 2:10)
Pnim (interior; 1 Kings 6:29)
Tsanim (dried slice of bread; Modern Hebrew)
Tsohorayim (mid-day; 1 Kings 18:26)


Elohim ends with the masculine plural suffix "-ִים"

Elohim can be used to speak of humans, angels or G-d. As I said earlier the "im" ending does not mean pluralality (someone already mentioned to you that G-d refers to Moses as an elohim and last I looked Moses was neither a god or multiple clones).

In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:

It receives a plural suffix;
It receives a plural verb;
It receives a plural adjective.

In Genesis we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים which translates to: "Eloh*m (He) created". Singular, not the plural "they" created ( בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים ). "Eloh*m is used more than 2000 times in the Tanach and almost always has a singular verb.

The adjective is almost always singular, too, where elohim is concerned. . For example: אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous Eloh*m" in Psalm 7:10), and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Eloh*m".

Elohim speaks to the majesty of the entity -- a ruler or judge (HaShem, angels and man) and is used to describe HaShem when He is in a judging or ruling mode (versus say anon*i which speaks of His mercy). The root of the word is eil, which means force.

BTW there are many names for G-d in Torah, but they aren't because there were multiple gods. In Hebrew names speak of attributes. Thus Abram's name is changed to Abraham. Jacob's name is changed to Israel.

G-d has a variety of names based on which attribute we are focusing on (judge, father, forgiving, etc.).

For one thing, the 4-letter name of the Creator is not a name at all, but a glyph with no pronounciation, and thus "Y-way" or whatever is not the same thing. And while there are some relationships between languages, the term Eloh means a "heavenly power" and the "plual" form is not only assigned to the Creator, but to His creations as well, so that is all contextual.

And if we ignore the names and go right to the core of it, intent, if the intent of Judaism is to speak of sole formeless undefinable Creator and uses a name that may or may not be related to another group that taught the opposite, then it would seem that the religion is not derived at all.

These are all excellent points... however, you are talking about taking the Torah literally, as the truth, word for word. If you are going to do that, you can't look at subtext and hidden meaning that the Torah does indeed carry. If you are going to examine the actual words being used, their roots must be included. Elohim is a Sumerian word adopted by the Hebrews. It's meaning was altered based on a manipulation of the word to obscure what was actually going on during those times, most of the important terms in the Torah and Bible are deliberately mistranslated due to the picture they paint. Ezekial describes a hovering ship when he sees the "Throne of God", the Tower of Babylon was a place to set an airship to reach "god" in his "heavenly abode", and Adam was covered in a scaly skin while Eve was made from his tail. It all paints a seriously different picture when the text is actually translated to mean what was literally written.

My point is, you have two options. You can look at these as moral stories taken from Ancient Sumeria, as every civilization that came out of Sumeria has a version of them, and leave the translation (deliberate as it is) mistranslated. Or, you can take them literally and have the translation in it's most pure form. There is no middle ground here. If you believe this to be the truth... then more power to ya'. You can't just accept however, the butchered translations and deliberate manipulations of these texts. The one thing I've hated about the Judeo-Christian religions is that they preach that knowledge is evil. They say "you're just a lowly human, you don't need to know the why of our God's plan, just follow our orders like a good little boy and you get to go to heaven". It's sickening. All throughout history, how have kingdoms oppressed their surfs, their slaves, and their underlings? They kept knowledge away from them. They wouldn't allow them to read, those who could read weren't allowed to read documents proclaiming the truth about their enslavers. It's always been about keeping the knowledge away from those you want to enslave, do you think that's something a just and loving God would do?

[skunkworks]

I understand where you're coming from Otacon. I completely respect your stance, but I just don't think the Torah was written with evil intentions. I know it seems contradictory to say that Judaism is a religion of inquiry and thought when we have the Torah answering most of our questions. The idea that something like was written sparks my interest, as a Jew and as a human.

[Joutei no Tenshu]

That's not entirely fair. The blue states are probably behind by about, 10 years. The red states are behind like, 4000 years.

since when did this become a political thread? :cool

[Nazareth]

As far as polotics go, I think most people think that if your a christian your a thick headed conservative. This is not true, Im a christian and Im very liberal. And I promise there are documents other then the bible that talk about jesus. They dont talk about him like hes GOd but they do make reference to him. Joutei no Tenshu, it almost sounds like your a little prejudice against christians. Im not saying your are, just saying it sounds a liitle like it. Anywho, by tkaing on religion your not giving up a lot really. Example, since im religious ill give up sex and things related to it becuase God tells me too. Well thats not so bad seeing how even if there was no God sex should be saved for marriage to show the ultimate love between people. God says not to hate, Thats not so bad either. By not hating people life seems more happy, even without God. The things you give up when taking on religion probably arent bad things to give up I dont think. I dont serve God becuase if I dont life will be pointless. I serve him becuase I think it is right. Its right of you to not fear death because its part of life. Anyway much of the peace we have in our society is from christianity. A lot of our laws are bassed off the 10commandments. The laws that we get from the bible usually keep us in order.

Sidenote: You said martial art buddies. What style do you or they do> IM a martial artist too.

[Joutei no Tenshu]

Hapkido.

You give up alot of your freedoms when going under a religion. I'll take death over that. A more advanced society no longer needs religion to keep people in order.

speaking of martial artists, the true martial art masters are asian, because most martial arts are from the East, and live in asia, etc. These very wise masters are certainly not christian, nor are there ancestors. According to you christians, most of the world is going to rott in hell. - and you say you're the nice guys, lol.

[skunkworks]

Hapkido.

You give up alot of your freedoms when going under a religion. I'll take death over that. A more advanced society no longer needs religion to keep people in order.

True, but people still need spiritual outlets. Now Xianity and Catholocism don't have much merit anymore, but I still think some people need religion and yearn for the notion of a creator.

[Nazareth]

Hapkido.

You give up alot of your freedoms when going under a religion. I'll take death over that. A more advanced society no longer needs religion to keep people in order.

speaking of martial artists, the true martial art masters are asian, because most martial arts are from the East, and live in asia, etc. These very wise masters are certainly not christian, nor are there ancestors. According to you christians, most of the world is going to rott in hell. - and you say you're the nice guys, lol.

It true most christians are dicks when it comes to heaven and hell. They think its my way or the highway. Its kinda hard to adress that issue with non-christians. While I do believe that, I dont think hell is this terrible burning place where people scream and cry in misory for all eternity. I think all it is is just a place where you have seperated yourself from God due to your own choice. Thats my take on hell. But being a christian is so easy. You dont really have to give up much to be a christian. All you have to do is accepte jesus and believe he died for you. Thats it. Its really really easy.

About martial arts, a lot of Christian beliefs can actually be applied to martial arts. I didnt think that christianity would work with martial arts until I heard some of the philosophy behind my particular style and found it wasnt so different for christianity. (Kung fu san soo)

[Inquisitor]

My point is, you have two options. You can look at these as moral stories taken from Ancient Sumeria, as every civilization that came out of Sumeria has a version of them, and leave the translation (deliberate as it is) mistranslated. Or, you can take them literally and have the translation in it's most pure form. There is no middle ground here. If you believe this to be the truth... then more power to ya'. You can't just accept however, the butchered translations and deliberate manipulations of these texts. The one thing I've hated about the Judeo-Christian religions is that they preach that knowledge is evil. They say "you're just a lowly human, you don't need to know the why of our God's plan, just follow our orders like a good little boy and you get to go to heaven". It's sickening. All throughout history, how have kingdoms oppressed their surfs, their slaves, and their underlings? They kept knowledge away from them. They wouldn't allow them to read, those who could read weren't allowed to read documents proclaiming the truth about their enslavers. It's always been about keeping the knowledge away from those you want to enslave, do you think that's something a just and loving God would do?

I want to commend you and skunkworks for having a really interesting debate about language. I am afraid that I lack the background to fully debate the points you present, but I have a few points I would like to bring up.

From what I have read from Christian scholars, they often openly say that in the Old Testament God seems to change, or, more accurately, that the Hebrews perception of God changed over time. Your explanation of this is that the compilers of the Old Testament conciously mistranslated and altered Sumerian myth in order to create a certain image of God. However, I think you have considered enough the fact that much of the Old Testament comes from different oral sources, which, in light of your posts, suggests that any linguistic changes were not done on purpose. Now, when the Bible was put together, with all the different sources and whatnot, the compilers assuredly faced difficulties in putting together a coherent work that stayed true to its sources. So, I don't think it's right to say or imply that there was malicious intent involved.

But even this discussion misses the heart of the matter, namely, whether or not Judeo-Christain theology is inherently wrong because of its apparent development from ancient myths. I hate to sound dismissive, but said development could be explained away by saying that God didn't so much change as did human perception of Him. Some might even claim that God guided the Hebrews over time, gradually revealing to them the truth.

Also, the tone of your posts seems very cynical. It's true that many people throughout history have used religion as an excuse for repression, but that says more about the depravity of mankind than the veracity of God's existence.

[senisi]

All I know is I believe in him.

[OtacontheOtaku]

I understand where you're coming from Otacon. I completely respect your stance, but I just don't think the Torah was written with evil intentions. I know it seems contradictory to say that Judaism is a religion of inquiry and thought when we have the Torah answering most of our questions. The idea that something like was written sparks my interest, as a Jew and as a human.


Ohhh!!! NONONONONONONNONOONONO, I didn't mean to imply that. I actually greatly respect the messages these texts preach. I don't consider them evil in any way whatsoever. However, I dislike the way these messages have been manipulated without searching for the sources. So many people have started wars over these texts... I just want everyone to know that the message is excellent, but conflict over them is pointless.

I want to commend you and skunkworks for having a really interesting debate about language. I am afraid that I lack the background to fully debate the points you present, but I have a few points I would like to bring up.

From what I have read from Christian scholars, they often openly say that in the Old Testament God seems to change, or, more accurately, that the Hebrews perception of God changed over time. Your explanation of this is that the compilers of the Old Testament conciously mistranslated and altered Sumerian myth in order to create a certain image of God. However, I think you have considered enough the fact that much of the Old Testament comes from different oral sources, which, in light of your posts, suggests that any linguistic changes were not done on purpose. Now, when the Bible was put together, with all the different sources and whatnot, the compilers assuredly faced difficulties in putting together a coherent work that stayed true to its sources. So, I don't think it's right to say or imply that there was malicious intent involved.

But even this discussion misses the heart of the matter, namely, whether or not Judeo-Christain theology is inherently wrong because of its apparent development from ancient myths. I hate to sound dismissive, but said development could be explained away by saying that God didn't so much change as did human perception of Him. Some might even claim that God guided the Hebrews over time, gradually revealing to them the truth.

Also, the tone of your posts seems very cynical. It's true that many people throughout history have used religion as an excuse for repression, but that says more about the depravity of mankind than the veracity of God's existence.

Well, I guess I was leaning towards when these texts were cannonized when I was referring to how they were manipulated. Now, the perception of "God" or "Gods" was wrong in the first place. So it's like a miasma spreading across history. Those first beings had some kinda of freaky advanced scientific capability. The perception of a pantheon degenerated into monotheism with the cannonizing of the Rabbinical texts. So, in a sense, the perception has become more narrow since the beginning.

When it comes to cynicism... well I'm not gonna deny it. I'm a pretty cynical person. I've seen and read some pretty horrible things about the way humanity dicks itself over and over again. So it kinda instills this fire in me that sometimes shows a little more than I would like :P . I also agree with the depravity of mankind... however, it's the lack of clarity that makes the depravity easily manipulate these texts.

[A Generic Leaf]

I am a Christian. I believe in God. Many don't. Many do. I believe in absolute truths. I believe murder is wrong. I believe stealing is wrong. In a post-modernism world, you have to decide if reality and truth is a constant or variable. If you believe that each person has his own sets of right and wrong, whatever they may be, you have to give them that "freedom"...even if killing does seem right to them. If you believe in God, then you do have a set a rules and guidelines. IF you feel that there is even such a thing as JUSTICE...and dont believe in some supreme being then what you feel is nothing. There is no such thing as justice. Its a thought...its something that you THINK is right. But with no God. No supreme being to give a definite definition of right and wrong, then there is no justice. there is not right. there is no wrong. Reality is a variable that is constantly changing. Reality is to each his own. So next time you see someone brutally murder someone...dont say "oh that is wrong". You may think it is wrong but we are animals. We have no point in life. We have no purpose but to continue and "evolve"...even though i find it ironic that we havent found some fossilized buicks or tv's in the ground...since they are more complicated then even the smallest of our cells. The more we we become more post modernistic...the more i think of farenheit 451...the more i think of farenheit 451, the more i think of a future that seems so pointless....

[skunkworks]

Ohhh!!! NONONONONONONNONOONONO, I didn't mean to imply that. I actually greatly respect the messages these texts preach. I don't consider them evil in any way whatsoever. However, I dislike the way these messages have been manipulated without searching for the sources. So many people have started wars over these texts... I just want everyone to know that the message is excellent, but conflict over them is pointless.

Well, I guess I was leaning towards when these texts were cannonized when I was referring to how they were manipulated. Now, the perception of "God" or "Gods" was wrong in the first place. So it's like a miasma spreading across history. Those first beings had some kinda of freaky advanced scientific capability. The perception of a pantheon degenerated into monotheism with the cannonizing of the Rabbinical texts. So, in a sense, the perception has become more narrow since the beginning.

Alright, I wasn't exactly sure. :amuse

Judaism's intent was monotheism right from the start. The words used for g-d aren't plural when you take the context into consideration, they can even be referring to judges.

[Tehol Beddict]

I am a Christian. I believe in God. Many don't. Many do. I believe in absolute truths. I believe murder is wrong. I believe stealing is wrong. In a post-modernism world, you have to decide if reality and truth is a constant or variable. If you believe that each person has his own sets of right and wrong, whatever they may be, you have to give them that "freedom"...even if killing does seem right to them. If you believe in God, then you do have a set a rules and guidelines. IF you feel that there is even such a thing as JUSTICE...and dont believe in some supreme being then what you feel is nothing. There is no such thing as justice. Its a thought...its something that you THINK is right. But with no God. No supreme being to give a definite definition of right and wrong, then there is no justice. there is not right. there is no wrong. Reality is a variable that is constantly changing. Reality is to each his own. So next time you see someone brutally murder someone...dont say "oh that is wrong". You may think it is wrong but we are animals. We have no point in life. We have no purpose but to continue and "evolve"...even though i find it ironic that we havent found some fossilized buicks or tv's in the ground...since they are more complicated then even the smallest of our cells. The more we we become more post modernistic...the more i think of farenheit 451...the more i think of farenheit 451, the more i think of a future that seems so pointless....

'Je pense, donc je suis' or 'Cogito ergo sum' -Rene Descartes

I think therefore I exist. One of the most cliche philisophical quotes of all time, yet it holds the weight of conditional truth.

I exist because I am capable of thought, or another level of intellectual awareness. Therefore my reality is crafted around the evolution of the collective consciousness of mankind. If my existence is based on my thought, then it only follows that it...follows. You follow? There is no jump there, there is no why. It is right and wrong at this step of societal evolution, so it is truly right and wrong in our minds and hearts. These rules and ideas have developed over time as our minds have evolved as a way to help better and further our existence. Every law, ideal and set of of morals we have today helps [or we believe it to help...] maintain our existence in the most efficient way possible. Surely you can understand that all we do is evolved from our instinctual animalistic desire to survive in the best way possible combined with the capabilities of realizational thought.

Man created god in his own mind because the idea that our morals and what-have-you were merely the next step of specie-survivalism was beneath him. The concept of god was created from man's pride. A need to seperate and put ourselves above other species...well, I'll digress too far from my intentions if I contue to trail off in that direction so I'll move on.

My point is that I exist for the sake of my existence. 'Tis true that the ideals and standards I live under are not my own and I struggled with that for quite some time during the the mid-teen years of my life. That was never important though, as I came to realize. The why doesn't matter, it is. My thought holds the power of creation in itself, making us all gods in our own right because without the realization that we are, there is no truth to our existence. It would be a shame to waste such unlmited potential and power because I overlook what is because I can't answer the why. Our purpose is survival, our survival just operates a bit differently. As our minds evolved we discovered the ability to essentially create our own environments and adapt them to our needs. Then as the constant evolution of our environment became a seperate entity, we had to evolve along with it. Society was born in this way, and our existance is an individual adaptation to our societal environment, which is an adaptive and evolving being all its own. It's a unique and complicated symbiotic relationship advanced beyond our comprehension and beyond our ability to escape. I suppose you could view society itself as some sort of post-modern god, but on the flip side of that, we are it's god, creator, and all that jazz. Which sort of reflects on the actual relationship between 'god' and man. Odd that way.

Anyways, what I'm driving at is that I feel sorry for you as a person if your existence isn't self-sustaining and fulfilling. I don't need someone higher power to know that I am and to exist for that purpose.

I thought of getting into how predestination denies the fact that we truly exist, so the concept of omniscience renders us essentially without being, but perhaps that would be better left for another time and another topic-drifting, adhd inspiring, nonsensical, and too damn long post that may or may not contain half of a jumbled and regurgitated point.

[Inquisitor]

Well, I guess I was leaning towards when these texts were cannonized when I was referring to how they were manipulated. Now, the perception of "God" or "Gods" was wrong in the first place. So it's like a miasma spreading across history. Those first beings had some kinda of freaky advanced scientific capability. The perception of a pantheon degenerated into monotheism with the cannonizing of the Rabbinical texts. So, in a sense, the perception has become more narrow since the beginning.

When it comes to cynicism... well I'm not gonna deny it. I'm a pretty cynical person. I've seen and read some pretty horrible things about the way humanity dicks itself over and over again. So it kinda instills this fire in me that sometimes shows a little more than I would like :P . I also agree with the depravity of mankind... however, it's the lack of clarity that makes the depravity easily manipulate these texts.

So let me get this straight: you are claiming that the very perception of "God" or "Gods" is inherently false and that the "manipulation" of ancient texts proves that people were just altering belief systems for their own benfit?

I mean, I have read your posts but I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion based on the evidence. In all likelihood the roots of Judaism are pagan, but that is simply because most people at the time of Abraham were polytheists. There is even evidence in the Old Testament of this, what with people saying things like "our God is greater than yours." However, I don't think this reflects any evil intent. Rather, I think it reflects a gradual change in theological belief. Consider this: some Greeks, over time, developed an almost monotheistic faith around Zeus. Sure, they kept the name, but the supreme deity they were worshiping shouldn't be confused with the Zeus of earlier myth. That is to say, some Greeks came to believe that polytheism made no sense. The point I am trying to get at here is that the name of a God and the etymology of that name tell us little about the veracity of that deity's existence.

Note well that I am not conceding to you on your earlier points about Christ being a myth and that the OT is heavily flawed. I am researching those topics, but at the moment, I don't think it would be proper for me to challenge you on them before coming to a more concrete opinion on the matter. I know it sounds like I am just making excuses, but I am no expert on these things.

[OtacontheOtaku]

Alright, I wasn't exactly sure.

Judaism's intent was monotheism right from the start. The words used for g-d aren't plural when you take the context into consideration, they can even be referring to judges.


Heh, glad to get that cleared up ^_^.

If you're speaking about the establishment of the Jewish church, then yes, that is correct. If you're speaking about the establishment of Judaism, then that's very wrong. The beginning of the Jewish faith revolved around the Jewish pantheon of Gods until it was declared that one god in the this pantheon called himself supreme before all others. While it's true it can be referring to judges, the sense in which it refers to "God" in particular is plural itself, and has plural roots.



So let me get this straight: you are claiming that the very perception of "God" or "Gods" is inherently false and that the "manipulation" of ancient texts proves that people were just altering belief systems for their own benfit?

I mean, I have read your posts but I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion based on the evidence. In all likelihood the roots of Judaism are pagan, but that is simply because most people at the time of Abraham were polytheists. There is even evidence in the Old Testament of this, what with people saying things like "our God is greater than yours." However, I don't think this reflects any evil intent. Rather, I think it reflects a gradual change in theological belief. Consider this: some Greeks, over time, developed an almost monotheistic faith around Zeus. Sure, they kept the name, but the supreme deity they were worshiping shouldn't be confused with the Zeus of earlier myth. That is to say, some Greeks came to believe that polytheism made no sense. The point I am trying to get at here is that the name of a God and the etymology of that name tell us little about the veracity of that deity's existence.

Note well that I am not conceding to you on your earlier points about Christ being a myth and that the OT is heavily flawed. I am researching those topics, but at the moment, I don't think it would be proper for me to challenge you on them before coming to a more concrete opinion on the matter. I know it sounds like I am just making excuses, but I am no expert on these things.

Sorry for the lack of clarity here :P. My ideas are radically different from most other people's beliefs. I'm not debating the perception of God through time, I'm saying that right from the start, the oldest texts we have, point to beings of incredible scientific prowess rather than "Gods". The people at the time didn't understand how these beings could possibly accomplish all this and revered them as "Gods". These "Gods" fought over humanity's rights and eventually one of these "Gods" took it upon himself to be called the supreme "diety" before all others. As far as my research has gone, this is what I've been able to come up with (it's actually about 100,000 times more invoved than that, but for simplicity's sake I'm leaving it at that). I've got most of the Torah/Haggadah/Old Testament sorted away, though I'm still researching tirelessly on it. Now I'm working on the New Testament to decipher much of what is within it's pages. I've found some pretty interesting theories such as Jesus and the apostles being an invention of the biblical John to preach a story of love, peace, and sacrifice to the people who were going through a spiritual revolution at the time. To the widely believed theory that revelations isn't actually a prophecy... but rather that it was an encoded letter to the Christians under the thumb of the Roman empire to give them hope in their dark hours of need (the Rapture, for those who don't know, isn't in Revelations, but rather developed in the 1800s in America).

So yes, I'm still researching as well, trying to make heads and tails of this mess that is history ^_^. I don't mean to try and attack the messages these books preach, I just don't wish people would try and question the parts that don't make any sense, and not accept answers that condone ignorance on the matter.

[Inquisitor]

Sorry for the lack of clarity here :P. My ideas are radically different from most other people's beliefs. I'm not debating the perception of God through time, I'm saying that right from the start, the oldest texts we have, point to beings of incredible scientific prowess rather than "Gods". The people at the time didn't understand how these beings could possibly accomplish all this and revered them as "Gods". These "Gods" fought over humanity's rights and eventually one of these "Gods" took it upon himself to be called the supreme "diety" before all others. As far as my research has gone, this is what I've been able to come up with (it's actually about 100,000 times more invoved than that, but for simplicity's sake I'm leaving it at that). I've got most of the Torah/Haggadah/Old Testament sorted away, though I'm still researching tirelessly on it. Now I'm working on the New Testament to decipher much of what is within it's pages. I've found some pretty interesting theories such as Jesus and the apostles being an invention of the biblical John to preach a story of love, peace, and sacrifice to the people who were going through a spiritual revolution at the time. To the widely believed theory that revelations isn't actually a prophecy... but rather that it was an encoded letter to the Christians under the thumb of the Roman empire to give them hope in their dark hours of need (the Rapture, for those who don't know, isn't in Revelations, but rather developed in the 1800s in America).

So yes, I'm still researching as well, trying to make heads and tails of this mess that is history ^_^. I don't mean to try and attack the messages these books preach, I just don't wish people would try and question the parts that don't make any sense, and not accept answers that condone ignorance on the matter.

Forgive me if I find your stance a little, well, strange. I don't mean to deride your efforts to discover the truth (mainly because I do not know the subtlties and nuances of your beliefs), but I think I will hold off on accpeting them for now. The most I can do is encourage you to pursue the truth.

Anyway, I find your statement that you aren't against the message of Scripture a little suspect. In your earlier posts you inveighed against the Bible as being filled with half-truths and mysogony.

Also, you seem to believe that Jesus didn't really exist. Would you mind articulating your arguments about this? I have heard many of them before, but I am not sure which you ascribe to.

Finally, about the Book of Revelation, I have often heard it said that it is not really written about the end of the world. However, from what I have read of the book, it seems to be more of a blend of providing hope and predicting the end times. Of course, there is a lot of symbolism involved, but much of it refers back to the prophetic sections of Scripture that describe the end of the world.

[skunkworks]

Heh, glad to get that cleared up ^_^.

If you're speaking about the establishment of the Jewish church, then yes, that is correct. If you're speaking about the establishment of Judaism, then that's very wrong. The beginning of the Jewish faith revolved around the Jewish pantheon of Gods until it was declared that one god in the this pantheon called himself supreme before all others. While it's true it can be referring to judges, the sense in which it refers to "God" in particular is plural itself, and has plural roots.

Judaism's texts are basically the establishment of Judaism. The Hebrews (not all them of course) may have believe in multiple gods, but with the Torah's exposition at Mount Sanai Judaism was formed. See, there was no such thing as Judaism before the Torah. I don't really wanna argue about the word g-d again, but my stance remains. If you really read the Torah in Hebrew you'd see the contextual use of G-d, and the plural G-ds.

[OtacontheOtaku]

Forgive me if I find your stance a little, well, strange. I don't mean to deride your efforts to discover the truth (mainly because I do not know the subtlties and nuances of your beliefs), but I think I will hold off on accpeting them for now. The most I can do is encourage you to pursue the truth.

Anyway, I find your statement that you aren't against the message of Scripture a little suspect. In your earlier posts you inveighed against the Bible as being filled with half-truths and mysogony.

Also, you seem to believe that Jesus didn't really exist. Would you mind articulating your arguments about this? I have heard many of them before, but I am not sure which you ascribe to.

Finally, about the Book of Revelation, I have often heard it said that it is not really written about the end of the world. However, from what I have read of the book, it seems to be more of a blend of providing hope and predicting the end times. Of course, there is a lot of symbolism involved, but much of it refers back to the prophetic sections of Scripture that describe the end of the world.

I don't mean to impose my ideas on others, I'm just defending my position. So thanks for the encouragement as I work ever vigilantly to work towards the truth ^_^.

The message I was referring to was that of love and equality, that which has been contradicted in several areas, but as a whole preaches. I just which the mysogeny had been left out =_=;.

Like I said, I'm still researching this. The arguement here is that Jesus (along with Buddha and Krishnu) share simularities with the Egyptian gods that are a little more than striking. It's also suspect that there is no record of Jesus ever being on the Earth. The work's of Josephus and Phylo even were plaugerised to try and include his existence, but it was discovered that these were not their actual writings. There's also the well-known fact that John of Jesus' apostles DID exist, but he was known as a philosopher, much like Plato. He is currently thought to have been the one who wrote the Gospels as a moral, taking his inspiration from the Egyptian pantheon.

As far as Revelations goes, it was written by St. John, coded in a Semitic writing style called "Apocolyptic" which of course is where we get the term "Apocalypse" from. The code was meant to hide the message of the book from the Romans as they were unable to read this style. Many references such as the beast with 7 heads is an obvious representation of the Roman empire.



Judaism's texts are basically the establishment of Judaism. The Hebrews (not all them of course) may have believe in multiple gods, but with the Torah's exposition at Mount Sanai Judaism was formed. See, there was no such thing as Judaism before the Torah. I don't really wanna argue about the word g-d again, but my stance remains. If you really read the Torah in Hebrew you'd see the contextual use of G-d, and the plural G-ds.

Heh, well, no sense in argueing then ^_^. You're a fun guy to debate Skunk. In the end it's to each his own. It's definitely fun to have your points challenged and finding holes in the arguement, cause then we all get a better understanding of where we're coming from. I'll bring some more info up in the future, but for now I'm pressed for time.

[Inquisitor]

I don't mean to impose my ideas on others, I'm just defending my position. So thanks for the encouragement as I work ever vigilantly to work towards the truth ^_^.

The message I was referring to was that of love and equality, that which has been contradicted in several areas, but as a whole preaches. I just which the mysogeny had been left out =_=;.

Very well then.


Like I said, I'm still researching this. The arguement here is that Jesus (along with Buddha and Krishnu) share simularities with the Egyptian gods that are a little more than striking. It's also suspect that there is no record of Jesus ever being on the Earth. The work's of Josephus and Phylo even were plaugerised to try and include his existence, but it was discovered that these were not their actual writings. There's also the well-known fact that John of Jesus' apostles DID exist, but he was known as a philosopher, much like Plato. He is currently thought to have been the one who wrote the Gospels as a moral, taking his inspiration from the Egyptian pantheon.



About Josephus, scholars do not agree on whether or not his passages on Christ were added later. He mentions the execution of the James the brother of Jesus (I suppose that passage might be a forgery), as well as mentioning rather minute details of Jewish history. So it would seem strange for him to ignore Jesus. He even describes John the Baptist (Ant., XX, ix, 1). But, it seems to me that unless the Christians had all the copies of Josephus's works that they could not have altered them all, since all "codices and manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm). There is also a class of critics who believe that only part of the passage about Jesus was altered, (Origen wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47)).

Philo died after AD 40 and it is not clear if he had heard enough about the Christians and Jesus to write about them (or even if he considered them important). If anything, it would be an argument from silence to claim that just because Philo or any other contemporary historian did not mention Jesus that he did not exist. Jesus died a very ignoble death as a criminal, and so some writers probably would have found it unseemly to discuss a provincial criminal from Israel.

There are other sources that mention Jesus outside of the Bible: Suetonius (A.D. 75-160) who described Christ ("Chrestus") as an insurgent that caused trouble during the rule of Claudius (AD 41-54) "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv)." He also applauded Nero for his treatment of the Christians ""Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi)." Of course, you could cite the discrepency in dates (Jesus is said to have died under Trajan if memory serves), but he does at least mention Christ/ Moreover, the historian Tacitus mentions that the founder of Christianity was executed by Pontius Pilate. He also describes the persecutions of Nero (Ann., XV, xliv). Finally, in the second century Lucian mentions Jesus' death on the cross and mocks his followers ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). My general source for this information is the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org.

Now, when you say that John the Apostle was a philospher and call that a generally accepted fact, I am afraid that the most I have heard and read is that his Gospel was more philosophical. To claim that he wrote the Gospels is to deny a large part of current Biblical scholarship, but it also flies in the face of the generally accepted conception that the Gospels were written as late as 100 AD (most Biblical scholars I have read think that Mark was written between 60 and 70 AD). So I don't think I can agree with you here. Also, what of St Paul's letters? It is a fact that they were written before the Gospels, so what is your explanation of them?

As for your belief that Jesus has striking similarites to Egyptian gods, I would humbly request more information (preferably from reputable sources), since I am not sure what you are talking about exactly.


As far as Revelations goes, it was written by St. John, coded in a Semitic writing style called "Apocolyptic" which of course is where we get the term "Apocalypse" from. The code was meant to hide the message of the book from the Romans as they were unable to read this style. Many references such as the beast with 7 heads is an obvious representation of the Roman empire.


I am aware of the symbolism in the Book of Revelation. I guess it is possible that it was written in a "code" but I really do not know. Sorry, but I lack the info to argue.

Also, I might not be around for the next few days because of college related stuff, so don't take my silence as proof of concesion.

[A Generic Leaf]

'Je pense, donc je suis' or 'Cogito ergo sum' -Rene Descartes

I think therefore I exist. One of the most cliche philisophical quotes of all time, yet it holds the weight of conditional truth.

I exist because I am capable of thought, or another level of intellectual awareness. Therefore my reality is crafted around the evolution of the collective consciousness of mankind. If my existence is based on my thought, then it only follows that it...follows. You follow? There is no jump there, there is no why. It is right and wrong at this step of societal evolution, so it is truly right and wrong in our minds and hearts. These rules and ideas have developed over time as our minds have evolved as a way to help better and further our existence. Every law, ideal and set of of morals we have today helps [or we believe it to help...] maintain our existence in the most efficient way possible. Surely you can understand that all we do is evolved from our instinctual animalistic desire to survive in the best way possible combined with the capabilities of realizational thought.

Man created god in his own mind because the idea that our morals and what-have-you were merely the next step of specie-survivalism was beneath him. The concept of god was created from man's pride. A need to seperate and put ourselves above other species...well, I'll digress too far from my intentions if I contue to trail off in that direction so I'll move on.

My point is that I exist for the sake of my existence. 'Tis true that the ideals and standards I live under are not my own and I struggled with that for quite some time during the the mid-teen years of my life. That was never important though, as I came to realize. The why doesn't matter, it is. My thought holds the power of creation in itself, making us all gods in our own right because without the realization that we are, there is no truth to our existence. It would be a shame to waste such unlmited potential and power because I overlook what is because I can't answer the why. Our purpose is survival, our survival just operates a bit differently. As our minds evolved we discovered the ability to essentially create our own environments and adapt them to our needs. Then as the constant evolution of our environment became a seperate entity, we had to evolve along with it. Society was born in this way, and our existance is an individual adaptation to our societal environment, which is an adaptive and evolving being all its own. It's a unique and complicated symbiotic relationship advanced beyond our comprehension and beyond our ability to escape. I suppose you could view society itself as some sort of post-modern god, but on the flip side of that, we are it's god, creator, and all that jazz. Which sort of reflects on the actual relationship between 'god' and man. Odd that way.

Anyways, what I'm driving at is that I feel sorry for you as a person if your existence isn't self-sustaining and fulfilling. I don't need someone higher power to know that I am and to exist for that purpose.

I thought of getting into how predestination denies the fact that we truly exist, so the concept of omniscience renders us essentially without being, but perhaps that would be better left for another time and another topic-drifting, adhd inspiring, nonsensical, and too damn long post that may or may not contain half of a jumbled and regurgitated point.


first i must clap..*claps* very nicely done arguement. I myself have only but scratched the surface of world religions and philosophies. (im only 16 taking some advanced classes)

I must truthfully say most of what you said went over my head but i did understand some things here and there. The quote "i think there fore i exist" is a very good quote when encountering the people who question our very existance as an illusion. of course then that gets into the whole concept of determinism(correct me if im wrong) where when one wakes up they are actually "starting to exist" and all past memories are just illusions. But i wont get into that.

At this stage...I cannot find a way to fully debat that. Please dont take that as a sign of weakness in my faith for im just scratching the surface. All I can say is i take a look at all of life and look at the complexities of life and say that I dont believe this is chance. If i wasnt a Christian i would still be a Intelligent design supporter. The thought of humanities purpose as nothing...to live to advance ourselves...when i do not see ourselves advancing very far. Wars are still fought. People do die. murders still happen. Technology may have progressed...but instead of people killing each other with swords and spears, we now kill each other with guns and bombs. To look at us right now and say we advanced beyond that of our ancestors. To say we are more civilized. I honestly dont see it.

Ok truthfully I have sat here and am admitting that at my current level I am not ready to fully debate you. Im not running away for i enjoy reading these thigns. Im trying to understand why others believe how they do and why. I know that some people hate us Christians. I know that. I know why. Some christians act arrogant and superior to those we want to preach to. They dont respect others. They forget it is our job to preach and not to judge those outside our religion. We have to respect others and give them our opnion. We are not here to say "YOU ARE WRONG AND IM RIGHT CUZ IM A CHRISTIAN AND YOUR GOING TO HELL". We arent here to force feed our relgions. WE are here to understand, respect and preach.

That may seem off topic but it saddens me to see us so misrepresented as almost "inquisitors". So if anybody come to this and says he is a Christian and does that...well I apologize for them.

BTW itachi. If you pm me your views on predestination, i would be thankful. You make is sound like an interesting read.

Not wanting to waste anymore space...Im done

[skunkworks]

Heh, well, no sense in argueing then ^_^. You're a fun guy to debate Skunk. In the end it's to each his own. It's definitely fun to have your points challenged and finding holes in the arguement, cause then we all get a better understanding of where we're coming from. I'll bring some more info up in the future, but for now I'm pressed for time.

:)

Funny thing is I was never religious, I always felt spiritual though. After I caught up on all of the Jewish philosophy it felt more grounded. I haven't started really starting studying Torah, I'd really like to take some history, and biology classes along with it.

[Joutei no Tenshu]

'Je pense, donc je suis' or 'Cogito ergo sum' -Rene Descartes

I think therefore I exist. One of the most cliche philisophical quotes of all time, yet it holds the weight of conditional truth.

I exist because I am capable of thought, or another level of intellectual awareness. Therefore my reality is crafted around the evolution of the collective consciousness of mankind. If my existence is based on my thought, then it only follows that it...follows. You follow? There is no jump there, there is no why. It is right and wrong at this step of societal evolution, so it is truly right and wrong in our minds and hearts. These rules and ideas have developed over time as our minds have evolved as a way to help better and further our existence. Every law, ideal and set of of morals we have today helps [or we believe it to help...] maintain our existence in the most efficient way possible. Surely you can understand that all we do is evolved from our instinctual animalistic desire to survive in the best way possible combined with the capabilities of realizational thought.

Man created god in his own mind because the idea that our morals and what-have-you were merely the next step of specie-survivalism was beneath him. The concept of god was created from man's pride. A need to seperate and put ourselves above other species...well, I'll digress too far from my intentions if I contue to trail off in that direction so I'll move on.

My point is that I exist for the sake of my existence. 'Tis true that the ideals and standards I live under are not my own and I struggled with that for quite some time during the the mid-teen years of my life. That was never important though, as I came to realize. The why doesn't matter, it is. My thought holds the power of creation in itself, making us all gods in our own right because without the realization that we are, there is no truth to our existence. It would be a shame to waste such unlmited potential and power because I overlook what is because I can't answer the why. Our purpose is survival, our survival just operates a bit differently. As our minds evolved we discovered the ability to essentially create our own environments and adapt them to our needs. Then as the constant evolution of our environment became a seperate entity, we had to evolve along with it. Society was born in this way, and our existance is an individual adaptation to our societal environment, which is an adaptive and evolving being all its own. It's a unique and complicated symbiotic relationship advanced beyond our comprehension and beyond our ability to escape. I suppose you could view society itself as some sort of post-modern god, but on the flip side of that, we are it's god, creator, and all that jazz. Which sort of reflects on the actual relationship between 'god' and man. Odd that way.

Anyways, what I'm driving at is that I feel sorry for you as a person if your existence isn't self-sustaining and fulfilling. I don't need someone higher power to know that I am and to exist for that purpose.

I thought of getting into how predestination denies the fact that we truly exist, so the concept of omniscience renders us essentially without being, but perhaps that would be better left for another time and another topic-drifting, adhd inspiring, nonsensical, and too damn long post that may or may not contain half of a jumbled and regurgitated point.

I understood every word you have spoken. I do not believe someone should speak against you if they do not understand each and every thought you have displayed as thoroughly as possible. As soon as A Generic Leaf said that he did not understand everything you said, I instantly stopped reading. He should not argue your points if he does not even grasp them in the first place.

Personally, I agree all the way with your reasoning, ItachitheOmnipotent. It was well put indeed, and I would enjoy reading more of what you have to say. So please, go as detailed as you want on your ideas. :cool

[agenta_hatake0915]

I believe there is a God. But I don't believe in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense? I'm kind of an atheist right now because I think Gods are kind of phony. Why would you need to unleash "extraordinary powers" just to get people to believe in you? I believe that Gods should be humble. Sure, you need to worship a God to respect him but I still think what they teach you is too phony

[Sands]

I believe there is a God. But I don't believe in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense? I'm kind of an atheist right now because I think Gods are kind of phony. Why would you need to unleash "extraordinary powers" just to get people to believe in you? I believe that Gods should be humble. Sure, you need to worship a God to respect him but I still think what they teach you is too phony
well, if "extraordinary powers" are not shown at times how can we know he is all powerful? the ancients worshiped their gods bcause they acknowledged their superiority and influence over their life. they beleived that if the gods were displeased their lives went into chaos. what they teach u can be phony bcause as i said earlier, the bible was written by man and not god. therefore we are enforcing the beliefs of those who wrote and changed it.

[Sweet Ambrosia]

To me, the idea of heaven and hell is an absolutely ludacris proposal. Both conceptions are totally make believe and no more than fairy tales. Hell is there to scare people into believing, and heaven is there to give even more reason to follow the religion.

In believing a religion, such as christianity, a person is giving up many of his or her freedoms. Only through darkness are you truly free.

Many many countless christians have posted on this thread stating they believe because they don't want to burn in hell and do not want to think life is pointless. Although life may be pointless, the mature and wise man can still understand its essence all the while not fearing death. Death should always be on the mind, it's simply a part of life. I do not fear it at all.

A more advanced and CIVILIZED society no longer believes in religions because it no longer needs them to keep peace and order. Our current society as a whole is far from such high standards.

My martial art buddies are going to get a kick out of this thread, because like me, they don't fall for bs.

I apologize if I offended any fairy tale believers. I am not afraid to say what is on my mind. :cool
Saying that people are more advanced because they believe the same things you do is complete bullshit indeed. You have nothing to prove God doesnt exist, so don't go bragging that you and the rest of the jackasses that believe the shit you spouted off in this thread are superior to Christians. Like you, I'm not afraid to say what's on my mind either.

[Nazareth]

Sand Weapons I agree with a point you made. If Jesus didnt use any powers how would he know hes God? One person said, if hes god why does he have to use powers?' Becuase if he didnt we wouldnt know if he was or wasnt. I promise if Jesus didnt use them you would say, 'well if he was God why didnt he use his powers?" But since he did your asking why he had to. Im pretty sure he didnt have to, but when he did he did some cool things, like make a blind man see and stuff like that.

[Alálà]

It is good I found this thread because there are several thoughts I would like to share with those people that seem to... hmm, how can I put this... misinterpret the bible and God's will.

1.
"God took him (concerning death)." "God, how can you let this happen (concerning disasters, deaths, unfortunate events)?" I hear stuff like this all the time. People have this thought stuck in their heads that God has planned out and written down of everything which has, is, and is going to happen in your life. Fate. A predestined future. There is no such thing. If no one has ever told you before... life is what you make it. You know that whole idea of free will? Yea, that's what makes us humans/homo sapiens/earthlings/etc.

2.
Person: "Oh, you go to church? Which type of church do you go to?"
Me: "Christian."
Person: "No, I mean, are you catholic, protestant, jehovah witness?
Me: "I am a christian."
There is only one church... and that is the church of Christ. What are these different names and divisions for? There is only one bible, so there should only be one church.

Person: "Okay, okay, you're a christian... which church do you go to?"
Me: "Well, we assemble/get together/gather in the building on ((address of building))."
The church = the people, not the building. If all the church buildings were to be blown up... you will still have the church. Church isn't a place. The church are the people in the building that believe.

4.
"How can I believe the Bible when it was written by man?" I hear some question this often. Well... there is the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three all exist in the beginning of time. The Holy Spirit was with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, with Joseph, with the prophets, with Jesus, with the apostles allowing them to do miracles, and with all those that believe in faith, hope, and love (main principles of a christian).

Through man, the Holy Spirit wrote the bible. It's like writing a paper. You can write it with a pen, or type it on the computer and print it, or use a quill... but no matter which tool you used, the paper is still written in ink.

((explanation of previous paragraph for those that didn't understand)) God could have chosen the Holy Spirit to write the bible through animals to make fairy tales and fables of talking farm animals fact rather than fiction or through nature by having dead leaves and loose bamboo spell it out for us like Spaghetti-Os... but writing it through man was best.

5.
"The Devil made me do it." I laugh when I hear this. The devil made you do it? Really? I guess this would go back to the free will concept. All those bad things you're doing... they come from temptations. Little red devils the size of hot tamale candies with pitch forks whispering in your hear, daring you to do something bad. Lies. Murder. Stealing. Cheating. Sexual Immorality (like sex before marriage, having an affair with someone other than your husband/wife, adultery). Cursing. There is so such thing as a 'little white lie'... they're all sin, no matter which degree it is done to.

6.
"Being a christian is too hard."
This has to be the most important word I have to say. Of course it's hard. If it were easy, then everyone would be doing it. People get the misconception that as a christian you have to boast your faith and run up a flight of stairs like Rocky and yell to the world, "I'm a christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, that's not how it's done. If you were to read the documentaries of Jesus (New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) you would see that Jesus never went to someone and initiated conversation with... "Hello, I am Jesus the Son of God. And you are?" Also when doing miracles such as healing the sick and even when speaking to his apostles he told them not to tell anyone who he was, but that such things were done in the name of God. By seeing the miracles, by listening to his words, by following his lifestyle... only then would they understand that he is the son of God.

It's true... we are unfortunate that Jesus doesn't walk among us this day. But picture this... considering all the people that don't believe today, it was worse back then. It was so bad that they needed signs and miracles to believe because they were so stubborn. Nowadays, we have faith without seeing. Yes it is truly remarkable if you are to believe something without seeing it yourself.

I could go on more...

[Nazareth]

It is good I found this thread because there are several thoughts I would like to share with those people that seem to... hmm, how can I put this... misinterpret the bible and God's will.

1.
"God took him (concerning death)." "God, how can you let this happen (concerning disasters, deaths, unfortunate events)?" I hear stuff like this all the time. People have this thought stuck in their heads that God has planned out and written down of everything which has, is, and is going to happen in your life. Fate. A predestined future. There is no such thing. If no one has ever told you before... life is what you make it. You know that whole idea of free will? Yea, that's what makes us humans/homo sapiens/earthlings/etc.

2.
Person: "Oh, you go to church? Which type of church do you go to?"
Me: "Christian."
Person: "No, I mean, are you catholic, protestant, jehovah witness?
Me: "I am a christian."
There is only one church... and that is the church of Christ. What are these different names and divisions for? There is only one bible, so there should only be one church.

Person: "Okay, okay, you're a christian... which church do you go to?"
Me: "Well, we assemble/get together/gather in the building on ((address of building))."
The church = the people, not the building. If all the church buildings were to be blown up... you will still have the church. Church isn't a place. The church are the people in the building that believe.

4.
"How can I believe the Bible when it was written by man?" I hear some question this often. Well... there is the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three all exist in the beginning of time. The Holy Spirit was with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, with Joseph, with the prophets, with Jesus, with the apostles allowing them to do miracles, and with all those that believe in faith, hope, and love (main principles of a christian).

Through man, the Holy Spirit wrote the bible. It's like writing a paper. You can write it with a pen, or type it on the computer and print it, or use a quill... but no matter which tool you used, the paper is still written in ink.

((explanation of previous paragraph for those that didn't understand)) God could have chosen the Holy Spirit to write the bible through animals to make fairy tales and fables of talking farm animals fact rather than fiction or through nature by having dead leaves and loose bamboo spell it out for us like Spaghetti-Os... but writing it through man was best.

5.
"The Devil made me do it." I laugh when I hear this. The devil made you do it? Really? I guess this would go back to the free will concept. All those bad things you're doing... they come from temptations. Little red devils the size of hot tamale candies with pitch forks whispering in your hear, daring you to do something bad. Lies. Murder. Stealing. Cheating. Sexual Immorality (like sex before marriage, having an affair with someone other than your husband/wife, adultery). Cursing. There is so such thing as a 'little white lie'... they're all sin, no matter which degree it is done to.

6.
"Being a christian is too hard."
This has to be the most important word I have to say. Of course it's hard. If it were easy, then everyone would be doing it. People get the misconception that as a christian you have to boast your faith and run up a flight of stairs like Rocky and yell to the world, "I'm a christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, that's not how it's done. If you were to read the documentaries of Jesus (New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) you would see that Jesus never went to someone and initiated conversation with... "Hello, I am Jesus the Son of God. And you are?" Also when doing miracles such as healing the sick and even when speaking to his apostles he told them not to tell anyone who he was, but that such things were done in the name of God. By seeing the miracles, by listening to his words, by following his lifestyle... only then would they understand that he is the son of God.

It's true... we are unfortunate that Jesus doesn't walk among us this day. But picture this... considering all the people that don't believe today, it was worse back then. It was so bad that they needed signs and miracles to believe because they were so stubborn. Nowadays, we have faith without seeing. Yes it is truly remarkable if you are to believe something without seeing it yourself.

I could go on more...

I agree with a few of your points and disagree with some others.
1. Its true the we have free will but God already knows what were going to do with our lives. Your right, its not fate, we choose what were going to do but God already knows whats going to happen.

2. The church oh christ is actually a type of christianity like methodist, lutheran all that stuff, but that crap doesnt matter. All that matters is you love jesus. You kinda sound like all those other churches other then the church of christ arent really churches. They are, they love jesus and thats all that matters. Except for jehovans. I have issues with their doctorine.

6. Being a christian isint really as hard as you make it out to be. The actual reason most people around where i live arent christians is becuase being a christian is [I]to[I] easy. All you have to do to become a christian is accept jesus. People are to skepticle about that so they think its to easy and must not be true. Being a christian is easy, whats difficult is some of the things that comes with christianity, not christianity itself.

[Sweet Ambrosia]

I agree with a few of your points and disagree with some others.
1. Its true the we have free will but God already knows what were going to do with our lives. Your right, its not fate, we choose what were going to do but God already knows whats going to happen.



How is that not fate? If God already knows its going to happen, then it's impossible for us to make a different choice.

[Nazareth]

How is that not fate? If God already knows its going to happen, then it's impossible for us to make a different choice.

Its not that God made the choices for us already. We can make any choice we want, but God already knows what we are going to do. I know it sounds funny, its just one of those things you have to think about to understand. its kinda like if I gave a free car to someone. A really nice free car. I knw they are going to say yes when I offer it to them, but they can always say no. Its not fate that they said yes, it was just their choice, but I knew what their choice was going to be.

[Sands]

Sand Weapons I agree with a point you made. If Jesus didnt use any powers how would he know hes God? One person said, if hes god why does he have to use powers?' Becuase if he didnt we wouldnt know if he was or wasnt. I promise if Jesus didnt use them you would say, 'well if he was God why didnt he use his powers?" But since he did your asking why he had to. Im pretty sure he didnt have to, but when he did he did some cool things, like make a blind man see and stuff like that.
exactly...since he showed powers(like makin a blind man see) people belive he was powerful.was he divine? it is said that jesus's divinity was voted on 300 years after his death.whather that is true or not is not entirely known. the fact that he is the supposed son of god gives followers the idea he is almighty. jesus himeself was a jew but his followings created a religion of their own.

[skunkworks]

exactly...since he showed powers(like makin a blind man see) people belive he was powerful.was he divine? it is said that jesus's divinity was voted on 300 years after his death.whather that is true or not is not entirely known. the fact that he is the supposed son of god gives followers the idea he is almighty. jesus himeself was a jew but his followings created a religion of their own.

Very true. I really doubt that Jesus wanted to start a new religion that deviated from Judaism, his own religion. I'm reading an interesting book called Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. It says that if Jesus didn't die and become particularly famous, his teachings and philosophies would have just become another sect of Judaism.

[Sands]

Very true. I really doubt that Jesus wanted to start a new religion that deviated from Judaism, his own religion. I'm reading an interesting book called Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. It says that if Jesus didn't die and become particularly famous, his teachings and philosophies would have just become another sect of Judaism.
those kind of books are very interesting.
if jesus hadn't creted another religion then judaism would have become much bigger. if jesus's followings became part of judaism, jews would have a lot more followers today. maybe that is a factor of why the rejected him. jesus did become famous and he was called christ. christianity is a different religion than judaism although maybe he based some teachings on it i'm not sure but maybe it influenced him.

[skunkworks]

Jesus told his followers to always keep the law, the Torah. I guess people weren't satisfied with just g-d, so they looked to a man.

[Sands]

man is probably more believable for some of them than a supernatural bieng. some ppl need to see to believe.

[Hexa]

'Je pense, donc je suis' or 'Cogito ergo sum' -Rene Descartes

I think therefore I exist. One of the most cliche philisophical quotes of all time, yet it holds the weight of conditional truth.

Conditional truth? What do you mean by a conditional truth? The term's primary sense is an opposition to absolute truth, and means that the statement is true only if some condition is meant. In that sense, there is no way that Descartes statement is a conditional truth.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Cogito isn't beyond reproach. Williams makes a convincing argument on the Cogito.

"He claims, for example, that what we are dealing with when we talk of thought, or when we say "I am thinking", is something conceivable from a third-person perspective; namely objective "thought-events" in the former case, and an objective thinker in the latter. The obvious problem is that, through introspection, or our experience of consciousness, we have no way of moving to conclude the existence of any third-personal fact, verification of which would require a thought necessarily impossible being, as Descartes is, bound to the evidence of his own consciousness alone." said Wikipedia.

[Tehol Beddict]

Are you aware of a philosophical statement that is completely beyond reproach then? Besides, I wasn't arguing the entire cogito [which is ironic if you note the context of my usage, because he later used it to prove to himself the existance of a perfect being] merely the relevance of a particular part of it in accordance with the statement I made. Kinda like people do with the bible :P

And this is what I meant by conditional truth:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4923/untitled17gf.jpg

which is exaclty the type of statement the cogito is, so I don't quite understand your argument there.

[Hexa]

Are you aware of a philosophical statement that is completely beyond reproach then? Besides, I wasn't arguing the entire cogito [which is ironic if you note the context of my usage, because he later used it to prove to himself the existance of a perfect being] merely the relevance of a particular part of it in accordance with the statement I made. Kinda like people do with the bible :P

"Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system. Even a statement very close to the periphery can be held true in the face of recalcitrant experience by pleading hallucination or by amending certain statements of the kind called logical laws. Conversely, by the same token, no statement is immune to revision. Revision even of the logical law of the excluded middle has been proposed as a means of simplifying quantum mechanics; and what difference is there in principle between such a shift and the shift whereby Kepler superseded Ptolemy, or Einstein Newton, or Darwin Aristotle?" -- W.V.O Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Some meaningful statements are certainly true, but none are beyond reproach.

And this is what I meant by conditional truth:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4923/untitled17gf.jpg

which is exaclty the type of statement the cogito is, so I don't quite understand your argument there.

The site doesn't define conditional truth at all. The site never says conditional truth save for the bottom in conditional truth function, and conditional truth function is better rewritten as conditional truth-function as it is a type of truth function for conditionals.

Anyhow, I'm pretty certain the origin of the term conditional truth lies in conditional statements. It's more like, in a -> b for example, b is probably only conditionally true. I think your confusion here is that you're breaking up the cogito; the statement cogito, ergo sum is not only conditionally true because it relies on no conditions to be true (other than the existence of logical rules). The statement itself is not of the form A -> (cogito, ergo sum). Saying "weight of conditional truth" is pure fluff. And fluffy philosophical statements annoy me, and it's even worse when the terms are used in the wrong way.

[sadated_peon]

Anyway much of the peace we have in our society is from christianity. A lot of our laws are bassed off the 10commandments. The laws that we get from the bible usually keep us in order.
No, our laws aren’t based off the 10 commandments. First off, only 2 of the 10 commandments are laws. The two are stealing and killing. Both of which existed before the 10 commandments, and even before Judaism.

Next is the fact that it is the policy of the united states written in the constitution that our government is not an establishment of the chirstian faith.

And if all that was not enough.
The treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1796 by the U.S. congress/president says.
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

About Josephus, scholars do not agree on whether or not his passages on Christ were added later. He mentions the execution of the James the brother of Jesus (I suppose that passage might be a forgery), as well as mentioning rather minute details of Jewish history. So it would seem strange for him to ignore Jesus. He even describes John the Baptist (Ant., XX, ix, 1). But, it seems to me that unless the Christians had all the copies of Josephus's works that they could not have altered them all, since all "codices and manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm). There is also a class of critics who believe that only part of the passage about Jesus was altered, (Origen wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47)).
The reason why it is known that Josephus texts were altered was because he referred to Jesus as the Messiah and son of god. Something that a Jewish person would not do. He mention of the follows of Christianity does not lead to believe that there was a christ. The point is not were Christians around, but instead any evidence of someone who wrote about christ himself. Something that is lacking, as most sources including Josephus himself where not around at the time of Jesus, and no credible author of the time describes a first hand account of Jesus.
As for your belief that Jesus has striking similarites to Egyptian gods, I would humbly request more information (preferably from reputable sources), since I am not sure what you are talking about exactly.
it is talking about the Egyptian trinity of Osirus-Isis-Horus
Its not that God made the choices for us already. We can make any choice we want, but God already knows what we are going to do. I know it sounds funny, its just one of those things you have to think about to understand. its kinda like if I gave a free car to someone. A really nice free car. I knw they are going to say yes when I offer it to them, but they can always say no. Its not fate that they said yes, it was just their choice, but I knew what their choice was going to be.
No, this is wrong. If god knows the future than there is no free.
If the future is known and it can not be changed then you have no choice. God knows what we will do before we do it, so it is impossible to do other than what he knows.
With you example, you don’t know what someone will do with the car, they can say no, that you guess that they will say yes, is not the omniscient knowledge of god that can not be wrong. Your is just a guess which can be wrong, and with it possibility of being wrong you lost the paradox.

Here is the thread where I have explained it over and over and over again. And before you say it, it doesn’t matter if god is outside of time, because humans aren’t outside of time.
http://forums.narutofan.com/showthread.php?t=36195&page=6

Very true. I really doubt that Jesus wanted to start a new religion that deviated from Judaism, his own religion. I'm reading an interesting book called Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. It says that if Jesus didn't die and become particularly famous, his teachings and philosophies would have just become another sect of Judaism.
I have to agree with you there, I think the bane of Christianity is taking things too literally. Jesus often referred to his followers as brothers, and spoke his messages in parables. To me Jesus calling god his father was not in the literal sense of the word father, but like calling others brother, a metaphoric way of describing the relationship.

[Inquisitor]

The reason why it is known that Josephus texts were altered was because he referred to Jesus as the Messiah and son of god. Something that a Jewish person would not do. He mention of the follows of Christianity does not lead to believe that there was a christ. The point is not were Christians around, but instead any evidence of someone who wrote about christ himself. Something that is lacking, as most sources including Josephus himself where not around at the time of Jesus, and no credible author of the time describes a first hand account of Jesus.

Yes, I am aware of the textual criticism of Josephus's work, but you didn't really address my point about Origen and the theory that only some of Josephus's work was altered. At worst, we are dealing with an argument from silence (in order to do that one has to disregard the Gospels). Also, the historians of Jesus' time wouldn't have considered him historically significant (mainly because he was executed as a criminal in a backwater of the empire).


it is talking about the Egyptian trinity of Osirus-Isis-Horus

Those three, eh? Now it was a while ago that I learned about Egyptian mythology, but I don't recall any striking similarities with Christ. Maybe I am missing something.

[sadated_peon]

Yes, I am aware of the textual criticism of Josephus's work, but you didn't really address my point about Origen and the theory that only some of Josephus's work was altered. At worst, we are dealing with an argument from silence (in order to do that one has to disregard the Gospels). Also, the historians of Jesus' time wouldn't have considered him historically significant (mainly because he was executed as a criminal in a backwater of the empire).
But the problem with assuming anything correct on a subject that is known to be altered is inherently flawed. Any truth from the text is now lost to interpretation on its alteration. But Josephus is still not a first hand account of Jesus.

Backwater isn’t the best way to describe the region, Alexandria was a great center of learning and it was relatively near by. Many of people inhabiting Alexandria were from the region and had a large Jewish population. Because of this the comings and goings of the were well recorded in the libraries of Alexandria, and reference to problem concerns and actions of the people in the region were plentiful. The region was through the land rote to Egypt(egypt being the breadbasket of the Roman Empire) and was significant enough to have several legions posted in the area. (for internal and external threats) To say that no first hand record survived from an un-Christian source not to be taken lightly. To give a comparison there are many records of Muhammad existing, though he launched a military campaign which does garner a bit more attention than spreading the word of peace. But it is still significant to note.
Those three, eh? Now it was a while ago that I learned about Egyptian mythology, but I don't recall any striking similarities with Christ. Maybe I am missing something.
well here is a site,
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm

I not sure about it though, some of the stuff sounds wrong, but there are some stuff that matches to what I have learned. Though I suggest you take them with a grain of salt.

[Inquisitor]

But the problem with assuming anything correct on a subject that is known to be altered is inherently flawed. Any truth from the text is now lost to interpretation on its alteration. But Josephus is still not a first hand account of Jesus.

Fair enough.


Backwater isn’t the best way to describe the region, Alexandria was a great center of learning and it was relatively near by. Many of people inhabiting Alexandria were from the region and had a large Jewish population. Because of this the comings and goings of the were well recorded in the libraries of Alexandria, and reference to problem concerns and actions of the people in the region were plentiful. The region was through the land rote to Egypt(egypt being the breadbasket of the Roman Empire) and was significant enough to have several legions posted in the area. (for internal and external threats) To say that no first hand record survived from an un-Christian source not to be taken lightly. To give a comparison there are many records of Muhammad existing, though he launched a military campaign which does garner a bit more attention than spreading the word of peace. But it is still significant to note.

Umm, Alexandria was in Egypt, and Egypt was certainly not held to be the same as Israel. That's like saying that since Appalachia is relatively close to Washington DC that Appalachia doesn't have a bad reputation. The fact is that, as great as Alexandria was, it was in a place with an entirely different reputation. By the way, Josephus was known for documenting the little details of Jewsih history. Also, you are still disregarding the Gospels outright. Another thing is that we have lost a large amount of historical material from that period of history. Also, as I said, Jesus was executed in a trouble region (perhaps backwater isn't the best word, but Galilee wasn't exactly a respected piece of land in Israel). There are a lot of societal reasons for historians to have not mentioned him (he was crucified, and in pretty much all social circles, talking about the details of crucifiction was taboo (the Gospels actually provide the most vivid details of crucifiction we have from the ancient world)). But as I said, you are presenting an argument from silence. Just because Jesus isn't mentioned (and I am not conceding the point, since I don't think the Gospels were made up) doesn't mean he didn't exist.

As for Mohammad, as you said, there are more records of him, but the primary source of knowledge about him comes from the Koran and the hadiths.

As for that site you linked me to, I noticed that at the top it says it contains excerpts from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. I commend you on taking it with a grain of salt. Let me provide you with a link refuting that work: http://www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

And from the same site a page about Egyptian gods:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

I have found tektonics to be an interesting site as far as apologetics is concerned. You could probably find better responses to your arguments on there than you can from me.

[sadated_peon]

Umm, Alexandria was in Egypt, and Egypt was certainly not held to be the same as Israel. That's like saying that since Appalachia is relatively close to Washington DC that Appalachia doesn't have a bad reputation. The fact is that, as great as Alexandria was, it was in a place with an entirely different reputation. By the way, Josephus was known for documenting the little details of Jewsih history. Also, you are still disregarding the Gospels outright. Another thing is that we have lost a large amount of historical material from that period of history. Also, as I said, Jesus was executed in a trouble region (perhaps backwater isn't the best word, but Galilee wasn't exactly a respected piece of land in Israel). There are a lot of societal reasons for historians to have not mentioned him (he was crucified, and in pretty much all social circles, talking about the details of crucifiction was taboo (the Gospels actually provide the most vivid details of crucifiction we have from the ancient world)). But as I said, you are presenting an argument from silence. Just because Jesus isn't mentioned (and I am not conceding the point, since I don't think the Gospels were made up) doesn't mean he didn't exist.
No, it is not the same. Israel was the center of the Jewish faith, Alexander had a huge population of Jews. It had religious and cultural significance for a large part of the population of Alexander. I am not saying that Alexander was on the same significance. I am saying that the Jewish population of Alexandria held the region with a lot of significance, and took acurate records of its comings and goings.

Yes it is true that much of the history has been lost in time, but this is usaslly due to the fact that Christianity destroied it because it conflicted with the religion, pagan heretical or otherwise. Though to say that records were not lost is irresponsible at best. But as we are now, there is no first hand evidence of Jesus(of non-Christian origin) , whether it is due to Jesus not existing, or loss of records and disinterest is unknown.

The Gospels confirmation of the Gospels is what is being searched for, you can not used the Gospels themselves to confirm their truth.

As for Mohammad, as you said, there are more records of him, but the primary source of knowledge about him comes from the Koran and the hadiths.
Yes, those are our main sources but they have backing from non-Islamic sources of first hand accounts of Muhammad.

As for that site you linked me to, I noticed that at the top it says it contains excerpts from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. I commend you on taking it with a grain of salt. Let me provide you with a link refuting that work: http://www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

And from the same site a page about Egyptian gods:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

It is true that the site takes liberties on the metaphors that it uses to compare, but the response from your website are a bit childish.
Example.
“4. "The sun is 'anointed' when its rays dip into the sea." (If you ask me, someone has been dipping and anointing themselves a little too much in the scotch bottle!)”

Many of the things on the website do have valid points, for example
Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th
Is true in many of the myths about Horus it was said that Isis was a virgin, and although dismissed as unimportant by your source. Having current beliefs today saying Jesus was born to a virgin on December 25th is not easily dismissed.
I have found tektonics to be an interesting site as far as apologetics is concerned. You could probably find better responses to your arguments on there than you can from me.
First I put a warning on the website I posted because there was an obvious bias and obvious errors. I generally try to not go for such sites. Tektonics is such a site, but from the other side. Though not as bad, it still uses the same sort of tactics.

[Inquisitor]

No, it is not the same. Israel was the center of the Jewish faith, Alexander had a huge population of Jews. It had religious and cultural significance for a large part of the population of Alexander. I am not saying that Alexander was on the same significance. I am saying that the Jewish population of Alexandria held the region with a lot of significance, and took acurate records of its comings and goings.

You are probably right that accurate records were taken of Israel's history, but as we all know, that information has been last (and some that has survived has been altered). Also, I would like some proof that Alexandria had such a signifcant Jewish population.


Yes it is true that much of the history has been lost in time, but this is usaslly due to the fact that Christianity destroied it because it conflicted with the religion, pagan heretical or otherwise. Though to say that records were not lost is irresponsible at best. But as we are now, there is no first hand evidence of Jesus(of non-Christian origin) , whether it is due to Jesus not existing, or loss of records and disinterest is unknown.

This sounds like conspiracy mongering to me. In order to believe your argument I would have to believe that all Christian historians have been disengenuous throughout the ages.


The Gospels confirmation of the Gospels is what is being searched for, you can not used the Gospels themselves to confirm their truth.

Ok, but then how do you explain Paul? If Jesus hadn't existed he would never had converted, and remember, he was a persecutor of Christians.


Yes, those are our main sources but they have backing from non-Islamic sources of first hand accounts of Muhammad.

Yes, but a lack of accounts about Jesus doesn't indicate his non-existence. And as you yourself admit, disinterest about Jesus could have been a factor (and from what I have read, it likely was).


It is true that the site takes liberties on the metaphors that it uses to compare, but the response from your website are a bit childish.
Example.
“4. "The sun is 'anointed' when its rays dip into the sea." (If you ask me, someone has been dipping and anointing themselves a little too much in the scotch bottle!)”

I'll admit that the folks at Tekton sometimes are a little informal, but the absurdity of some of the arguments presented in the Christ Conspiracy don't always warrant seriousness.


Many of the things on the website do have valid points, for example
Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th

Ok, but the Church chose the date December 25th as a celebration of Christ's birth (and was done to replace a pagan holiday). No where in scripture does it say that Jesus was born on December 25th. The Church's choice is just a coincidence.


Is true in many of the myths about Horus it was said that Isis was a virgin, and although dismissed as unimportant by your source. Having current beliefs today saying Jesus was born to a virgin on December 25th is not easily dismissed.

But if they were really modelling Christ after Horus then why is it said nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus was born on December 25th? As I have said, the Church chose December 25th to celebrate Christmas to replace a pagan holiday.


First I put a warning on the website I posted because there was an obvious bias and obvious errors. I generally try to not go for such sites. Tektonics is such a site, but from the other side. Though not as bad, it still uses the same sort of tactics.

That is a rather quick judgement. You presented me with points presented on one website, and I responded with one that does solid research.

[sadated_peon]

You are probably right that accurate records were taken of Israel's history, but as we all know, that information has been last (and some that has survived has been altered). Also, I would like some proof that Alexandria had such a signifcant Jewish population.

“It was not only a center of Hellenism, but was also the greatest Jewish city in the world. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria
This sounds like conspiracy mongering to me. In order to believe your argument I would have to believe that all Christian historians have been disengenuous throughout the ages.
It was the policy of the Church to destroy all material that they considered to be heretical or pagan.
Ok, but then how do you explain Paul? If Jesus hadn't existed he would never had converted, and remember, he was a persecutor of Christians.
paul is the least credible, he never met Jesus, his confirmation of text already written doesn’t lead to a first hand source of comparison.
Yes, but a lack of accounts about Jesus doesn't indicate his non-existence. And as you yourself admit, disinterest about Jesus could have been a factor (and from what I have read, it likely was).
As I said, that there are no other first hand account does not mean that jesus never existed. I have never said this, and agree that it is wrong to make this connection. But it does leave room for doubt.
I'll admit that the folks at Tekton sometimes are a little informal, but the absurdity of some of the arguments presented in the Christ Conspiracy don't always warrant seriousness.
That was not informal that was blatantly insulting. I think that many things that christians say don’t warrant serious discussion, but I don’t get to make that choice, and neither do they.
Ok, but the Church chose the date December 25th as a celebration of Christ's birth (and was done to replace a pagan holiday). No where in scripture does it say that Jesus was born on December 25th. The Church's choice is just a coincidence.

But if they were really modelling Christ after Horus then why is it said nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus was born on December 25th? As I have said, the Church chose December 25th to celebrate Christmas to replace a pagan holiday.
???
you are only lending credence to the position that story of Jesus was based on pagan myths. If this was done to replace a pagan holiday, how much else was replaced.
That you seem to accept that current christian dogma is based not on what happened but instead on ancient pagan rituals only supports proponents of the belief that Christ himself is a story based on pagan myths.
That is a rather quick judgement. You presented me with points presented on one website, and I responded with one that does solid research.
solid research is not how I would describe Tektonics. These people are not historians they are Apologetics who are more concerned with a defense than the truth.

[Paperclips]

My personal beleif is that, weather there is a god or not, religion is a good thing that brings people together and teaches everyone to have love and compassion. I can't see why anyone would badmoth that. And even if it turns out that there is no god, i would have rather believed and die peacefully, without fear of death, than to be all like 'OMG I'M DYING'. And what if it turns out there is a god? I would rather believe in God and end up wrong than not believe in god and have it turn out that there is one and i'm going to hell.

[Inquisitor]

“It was not only a center of Hellenism, but was also the greatest Jewish city in the world. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria


Ok. That answers that question.


It was the policy of the Church to destroy all material that they considered to be heretical or pagan.

To the best of my knowledge, it was not the official policy of the Church to alter historical documents, though there are cases of such things happening (the Patrimony of Constantine was one such forgery if memory serves). As far as destruction goes, I am aware that the Church tried to get rid of heresy and paganism, but I don't know if they went so far as to destroy historical documents.


paul is the least credible, he never met Jesus, his confirmation of text already written doesn’t lead to a first hand source of comparison.


I think you missed my point; Paul was in a position to know if Jesus existed, since he lived at the time of Jesus. If Jesus did not exist, then that would have been a handy argument for him to have used against the Christians. I suppose you could respond that Paul was always Christian and the story of his conversion was just made up, but that begs the question of just how deep this whole conspiracy goes.


As I said, that there are no other first hand account does not mean that jesus never existed. I have never said this, and agree that it is wrong to make this connection. But it does leave room for doubt.

Ok. I miss understood you. I can't dispute that there is room for doubt, though one can argue over how much doubt is warranted.


That was not informal that was blatantly insulting. I think that many things that christians say don’t warrant serious discussion, but I don’t get to make that choice, and neither do they.

I can't do anything other than cede that point. For a site that lists logical fallacies, you'd think they would know not to stoop to ad hominem.


???
you are only lending credence to the position that story of Jesus was based on pagan myths. If this was done to replace a pagan holiday, how much else was replaced.

As far as we know, it was just to show the dominance of Christianity over paganism (as well as for convenience sake).


That you seem to accept that current christian dogma is based not on what happened but instead on ancient pagan rituals only supports proponents of the belief that Christ himself is a story based on pagan myths.


Huh? It is not a Christian dogma that Jesus was born on December 25th. There are levels of Church teaching, and the placement of Christmas on December 25th is nowhere near the top. Christmas as a feast practiced by the Church, can be traced back to around 200 AD in Egpyt, placing it on May 20th. For more information on Christmas and its origins, check the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm



solid research is not how I would describe Tektonics. These people are not historians they are Apologetics who are more concerned with a defense than the truth.

Eh, I don't know if it is fair to brush aside all of their arguments merely because they describe themselves as Apologists, but far be it from me to justify poor argumentation.

[opium4themasses]

Please refrain from using Pascal's wager. What sort of faith do you have if your worship is based on fear of the unknown and not in actually believing what the religion has to offer?

As far as the Gospels, Read the Synoptic Gospels in this order: Mark, Matthew, Luke. Perhaps then, you'll get a feeling for why some might see exaggeration.

[sadated_peon]

To the best of my knowledge, it was not the official policy of the Church to alter historical documents, though there are cases of such things happening (the Patrimony of Constantine was one such forgery if memory serves). As far as destruction goes, I am aware that the Church tried to get rid of heresy and paganism, but I don't know if they went so far as to destroy historical documents.
getting rid of heresy and paganism included any historical documents they felt hurt the church.
I think you missed my point; Paul was in a position to know if Jesus existed, since he lived at the time of Jesus. If Jesus did not exist, then that would have been a handy argument for him to have used against the Christians. I suppose you could respond that Paul was always Christian and the story of his conversion was just made up, but that begs the question of just how deep this whole conspiracy goes.

I wouldn’t go as far to see such a conspiracy, but it isn’t needed. Converts do not only come from the just the undecided, but also from the opposition. His conversion is not evidence of the existence of Jesus, just the persuasiveness of those in the religion.
As far as we know, it was just to show the dominance of Christianity over paganism (as well as for convenience sake).
doesn’t that seem a little hollow to you. Changing the date the lord and savior was born on, one of the most hallowed moments in history, he the sun of god, who sacrificed himself for the sins of man…. To better match the convenience of pagans.
Huh? It is not a Christian dogma that Jesus was born on December 25th. There are levels of Church teaching, and the placement of Christmas on December 25th is nowhere near the top. Christmas as a feast practiced by the Church, can be traced back to around 200 AD in Egpyt, placing it on May 20th. For more information on Christmas and its origins, check the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

actually that site says that there wasn’t a consistent date for the birth of Jesus. But it is very much dogma today, and has been for a millennia that he was born on 25th. That this date is based not on an what actually happened but instead based on pagan myths, is a point.
Eh, I don't know if it is fair to brush aside all of their arguments merely because they describe themselves as Apologists, but far be it from me to justify poor argumentation.
I didn’t say I dismissed them, I compared it to the site I linked to. I said they were better than the site I linked to, and I don’t dismiss the site I linked to. So you can not say that I dismissed them, I just don’t hold them in high esteem.

[Inquisitor]

getting rid of heresy and paganism included any historical documents they felt hurt the church.

I hate to keep asking for proof as if I am unable to do research myself, but...if you would be so kind?


I wouldn’t go as far to see such a conspiracy, but it isn’t needed. Converts do not only come from the just the undecided, but also from the opposition. His conversion is not evidence of the existence of Jesus, just the persuasiveness of those in the religion.

You still haven't addressed the point that Paul was alive at the time. In Israel. How could he not know whether or not Jesus was real?


doesn’t that seem a little hollow to you. Changing the date the lord and savior was born on, one of the most hallowed moments in history, he the sun of god, who sacrificed himself for the sins of man…. To better match the convenience of pagans.

Eh, not really. I see it more as a date chosen to commemorate it on, not as a dogma. I don't really believe Jesus was born on December 25th.


And for the last time it is not Church dogma that Jesus was born on December 25th. Church teachings have levels of authority, and the dating of a feast day at most can be labelled as Church law. Dogma, doctrine, are the highest levels of Church teaching, with prudential judgements being an application thereof. Church law is meant for maintaing order in the Church. And as you can tell from that article, dates for feast days can be changed. Nowadays, Christmas is considered an unmovable feast mainly to maintain an orderly calandar. It really isn't that big of a deal.


actually that site says that there wasn’t a consistent date for the birth of Jesus. But it is very much dogma today, and has been for a millennia that he was born on 25th. That this date is based not on an what actually happened but instead based on pagan myths, is a point.


Umm, I never claimed there was a consistent date (I mentined May 20th in my earlier post). Also, I don't see how the decision to date a feast centuries after Christ's life and death is any sort of support for the claim that the notion of Jesus was based on pagan myth (which is the original claim made by OtacontheOtaku). After all, the latest I've heard for a date for the Gospels is 100 AD (the earliest date I've heard is 70), so unless Christians manipulated the texts over time to fit some Egyptian archetype, then I don't see how this particular aspect of the original argument (that the date of december 25th is one of those "striking" similarities Jesus has with Horus) holds much water.



I didn’t say I dismissed them, I compared it to the site I linked to. I said they were better than the site I linked to, and I don’t dismiss the site I linked to. So you can not say that I dismissed them, I just don’t hold them in high esteem.

Very well.

[sadated_peon]

I hate to keep asking for proof as if I am unable to do research myself, but...if you would be so kind?
here is a line from the offial position of the Catholic Church during the inquisition.
"to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines"

Anything that contradicted Christianity was destroyed.

EDIT: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm
You still haven't addressed the point that Paul was alive at the time. In Israel. How could he not know whether or not Jesus was real?
because he never met Jesus, only the people who claimed to follow him.
Eh, not really. I see it more as a date chosen to commemorate it on, not as a dogma. I don't really believe Jesus was born on December 25th.


And for the last time it is not Church dogma that Jesus was born on December 25th. Church teachings have levels of authority, and the dating of a feast day at most can be labelled as Church law. Dogma, doctrine, are the highest levels of Church teaching, with prudential judgements being an application thereof. Church law is meant for maintaing order in the Church. And as you can tell from that article, dates for feast days can be changed. Nowadays, Christmas is considered an unmovable feast mainly to maintain an orderly calandar. It really isn't that big of a deal.

“In 320 AD, Pope Julius I specified the 25th of December as the official date of the birth of Jesus Christ.” (note date of birth, not date to celebrate) The date is not unique to one church, all of Christianity holds this date to be true. You seem to agree that it is definitely an institutionalized date in Christianity. I feel that this is more now a discussion on the application of the word dogma, than the significance of date.

So to get back on topic, whether it is dogma, or church law, it is still great evidence of a pagan base for the story of Jesus.
Umm, I never claimed there was a consistent date (I mentined May 20th in my earlier post). Also, I don't see how the decision to date a feast centuries after Christ's life and death is any sort of support for the claim that the notion of Jesus was based on pagan myth (which is the original claim made by OtacontheOtaku). After all, the latest I've heard for a date for the Gospels is 100 AD (the earliest date I've heard is 70), so unless Christians manipulated the texts over time to fit some Egyptian archetype, then I don't see how this particular aspect of the original argument (that the date of december 25th is one of those "striking" similarities Jesus has with Horus) holds much water.
The dating of the 25th did not arise suddenly or arbitrarily your website quotes dates for when celebrations were recorded, but it gives very little information on beliefs of the time.
It is clear that the dating of the Jesus birth had direct influence by pagan rights, it is a direct indication its possible origins.

That you don’t see that a pagan myth about the son of a god being born to a virgin on the 25th of December has no striking similarities to Jesus is hard to believe.

[metalanime]

I was wondering, why did that pope a long time ago change the calendar to the current gregorian calendar we use today? He eliminated an entire month and had there been 13 months now, each month would consist of the same amount of days and there would be no need for leap year due to the inconsistent days and months thing.

[Nybarius]

I was wondering, why did that pope a long time ago change the calendar to the current gregorian calendar we use today? He eliminated an entire month and had there been 13 months now, each month would consist of the same amount of days and there would be no need for leap year due to the inconsistent days and months thing.

God told him to, for the number thirteen, yay, it was sinful.

[metalanime]

but did god tell him to, or was it because they were just because the church condemned astrology? And how do we know the god told him to? Any if the 13 was so evil, why did it create a perfect calendar? Here is a little quote.

"To the orthodox Christian, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who died so our sins could be forgiven. But you will find exactly the same claims for a stream of ‘gods’ in the ancient world long before the name of ‘Jesus’ was even heard of. Indeed, we know his name wasn’t Jesus because that’s a Greek translation of a Hebrew name. The term Son of God would seem to originate at least as far back as the Aryan Gothic kings of Cilicia who took the title ‘Son of the Sun God’, a tradition adopted by the Pharaohs of Egypt."

But I did find this picture of jesus.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/metalanime/gaidrink.jpg

[metalanime]

here a little something more.

"OK, a little quiz. Who am I talking about?
He was born to a virgin by immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy
spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy. When he was born the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety. All male children under the age of two were slain by the ruler as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the saviour of men and led a moral and humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out devils and raising the dead. He was put to death on the cross between two thieves. He descended to hell and rose from the dead to ascend back to heaven.21

Sounds exactly like Jesus doesn’t it? But it’s not. That is how they described the Eastern saviour god known as Virishna 1,200 years before Jesus is claimed to have been born."

"Here are just some of the ‘Son of God’ heroes who play the lead role in stories which mirror those attributed to Jesus and almost all were worshipped long before Jesus was even heard of:

Khrishna of Hindostan; Buddha Sakia of India; Salivahana of Bermuda; Osiris and Horus
of Egypt; Odin of Scandinavia; Crite of Chaldea; Zoroaster of Persia; Baal and Taut of
Phoenicia; Indra of Tibet; Bali of Afghanistan; Jao of Nepal; Wittoba of Bilingonese;
Tammuz of Syria and Babylon; Attis of Phrygia; Xamolxis of Thrace; Zoar of the
Bonzes; Adad of Assyria; Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam; Alcides of Thebes;
Mikado of the Sintoos; Beddru of Japan; Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillahm, of the Druids;
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls; Cadmus of Greece; Hil and Feta of Mandaites; Gentaut
and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico; Universal Monarch of the Sibyls; Ischy of Formosa; Divine
Teacher of Plato; Holy One of Xaca; Fohi and Tien of China; Adonis, son of virgin lo, of
Greece; Ixion and Quirinus of Rome; Prometheus of the Caucasus; and Mohammed or
Mahomet, of Arabia."

Many of the stories attributed to jesus are just like the stories of theses people who existed way before him.

[metalanime]

Here is a little back ground to that Dec. 25th thing.

"We are led to believe that the Christian Church emerged as one unit, but this is simply not true. There were many factions across a wide spectrum of views arguing and battling for supremacy as the holders of ‘the truth’. The fiercest conflict ensued between the followers of the StPaul version of Jesus as the supernatural Son of God, and the Arians, who believed he was a man, not God. The Arians were named after Anus, a churchman in Alexandria, Egypt, who questioned that Jesus could be the same as God. Had not Jehovah said that he was the only God? How then could God be in three parts as the Father, Son and HolySpirit? The ‘trinity’ is a Pagan concept and part of Babylonian and Egyptian belief. Now if we lived in a world full of mature adults, we would allow people the respect and freedom to believe anything they like so long as they don’t impose it on others. Just because we may think it is wrong or a nonsense should not matter. My problem with Christianity and religion in general is not that anyone believes it, that is their right, what I challenge is the way it has been imposed upon people through the use of fear, guilt, violence and the suppression of alternative thought. Unfortunately, allowing people the right to believe something you don’t, has become a criminal offence and so the Paulines and the Arians insisted on crushing each other. At this point, enter Constantine the Great, who, together with the Pisos and Pliny, was the creator of what became known as Christianity."

That kind of explains the mentality of nybarius' post.

"Constantine was made Emperor of the Roman Empire in 312 AD. He won a reputation as a brave and ruthless soldier and served in Britain for a time before being elected as Caesar of the West. He then began to kill his rivals, including many of their children, as he sought to be emperor of all. In one of his battles for the Roman leadership, at Milvian Bridge near Rome, the Christian legend claims that he saw a vision of a cross in the sky with the words: “By this Conquer”. The next night, so it is said, he had a vision of Jesus who told him to put the cross on his flag to guarantee victory over his enemies. Good story, but the word bollocks* is drifting across my mind. Constantine was said to have been converted to Christianity by his visions, but there’s one tiny problem with that. He never did become a Christian, except perhaps on his deathbed as a bit of insurance. He worshipped the Greek god Apollo (the Sun), and the Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun), and he remained to his death the Pontifex Maximus of the Pagan Church! As a result, Jesus was given the Sun’s birthday of December 25th which has remained ever since. Constantine is also responsible for the great Christian shrine in Jerusalem."

[opium4themasses]

He also founded a city, but you can't go there anymore.

[Tehol Beddict]

"Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system. Even a statement very close to the periphery can be held true in the face of recalcitrant experience by pleading hallucination or by amending certain statements of the kind called logical laws. Conversely, by the same token, no statement is immune to revision. Revision even of the logical law of the excluded middle has been proposed as a means of simplifying quantum mechanics; and what difference is there in principle between such a shift and the shift whereby Kepler superseded Ptolemy, or Einstein Newton, or Darwin Aristotle?" -- W.V.O Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Some meaningful statements are certainly true, but none are beyond reproach.



The site doesn't define conditional truth at all. The site never says conditional truth save for the bottom in conditional truth function, and conditional truth function is better rewritten as conditional truth-function as it is a type of truth function for conditionals.

Anyhow, I'm pretty certain the origin of the term conditional truth lies in conditional statements. It's more like, in a -> b for example, b is probably only conditionally true. I think your confusion here is that you're breaking up the cogito; the statement cogito, ergo sum is not only conditionally true because it relies on no conditions to be true (other than the existence of logical rules). The statement itself is not of the form A -> (cogito, ergo sum). Saying "weight of conditional truth" is pure fluff. And fluffy philosophical statements annoy me, and it's even worse when the terms are used in the wrong way.


We'll just go ahead and move into the second part of this since the first has been pretty solidly covered.

My confusion here lies not in that, but in our apparently differring definitions of conditional truth. It seems very simple in nature to my mind, a->b and as was written out in the equation I provided, a, therefore b. Cogito therefore sum. I don't understand the confusion here at all. The entire basis of its meaning is derived from conditional truth. His thought proves to himself that he exists, he thinks, therefore he exists, and with the the way that the equation I provided is written out, it clearly states that b is proven true if condition a is met. What else is there to it? Where is your equation for it that allows me to understand how the statement isn't conditional truth?

The idea was that he stripped away all things that could be doubted and he -shortly stated- arrived at the fact that the two things that he couldn't doubt were the conditionally true laws of mathematics "And the reason Descartes knew he could not doubt the truths of
mathematics and logic is that those truths are all based on proofs
that, if they were NOT true, would lead to a contradiction (so they
must be true). Even 1 + 1 = 2 is like that. Arithmetic is based on
axioms, which we assume to be true. Our assumptions could be false, but
that does not matter, because when we do a proof it is always
CONDITIONAL on the truth of the axioms: In mathematics, I never prove
that something is true "no matter what"; I only prove that it's true IF
the axioms are true. In fact, the longhand version of a proof, if it
starts right from the axioms, is always of the form: If the axioms were
true and this were false, that would create a contradiction (so, this
must be true!)." and the fact that no matter what he doubted, it was still true that he doubted. And if he doubts, then his doubt itself cannot be doubted, thus proving to him his existance.

So you see how I cannot see what your intentions are here, or your meaning. It seems that one of us misunderstands the idea of conditional truth. Either that or we are simply miscommunicating. I have no hesitance in admitting that I may be wrong in my definition of it, I am not, after all, schooled in philosophic terminology, I know naught of it's ways other than the way I have to come to understand things on my own, so when I say conditional truth I take it as I understand it to be. That being said, I have no intention of changing my views on the matter unless some alternative proofs are provided for me so that I might understand what it is you're saying and its truth in accordance with how I used it rather than staying with my own idea of it.

[Hexa]

We'll just go ahead and move into the second part of this since the first has been pretty solidly covered.

My confusion here lies not in that, but in our apparently differring definitions of conditional truth. It seems very simple in nature to my mind, a->b and as was written out in the equation I provided, a, therefore b. Cogito therefore sum. I don't understand the confusion here at all.

Well, I should state that the traditional reading of the implication is "if . . . then . . ." It's not a conclusion, that is to say, which is normally denoted by therefore. But, regardless, cogito ergo sum has a conditional form. That doesn't mean the statement itself requires any other conditions to be true, as I explained earlier. The meaning of conditional truth is not that a statement is both true and of the form a -> b.

So you see how I cannot see what your intentions are here, or your meaning. It seems that one of us misunderstands the idea of conditional truth. Either that or we are simply miscommunicating. I have no hesitance in admitting that I may be wrong in my definition of it, I am not, after all, schooled in philosophic terminology, I know naught of it's ways other than the way I have to come to understand things on my own, so when I say conditional truth I take it as I understand it to be. That being said, I have no intention of changing my views on the matter unless some alternative proofs are provided for me so that I might understand what it is you're saying and its truth in accordance with how I used it rather than staying with my own idea of it.

My intention was to clear up a problem with your wording. I skimmed through, saw a horrible use of a term, and commented on it. In the quote you gave, for instance, "conditional on the truth of x" is a circumlocutory way of saying conditional truth (when you know what x is). The cogito isn't conditional on anything else being true (save the laws of logic but that isn't a meaningful point). Thereby, the cogito is not conditional truth.

[skunkworks]

I have to agree with you there, I think the bane of Christianity is taking things too literally. Jesus often referred to his followers as brothers, and spoke his messages in parables. To me Jesus calling god his father was not in the literal sense of the word father, but like calling others brother, a metaphoric way of describing the relationship.

Definitely. Christianity doesn't emulate the religions it's derived from very well. Most of the holidays revolve around dumbed-down pagan rituals. Also, they decided that Sunday would be the day of rest, when according to Judaism, the religion Jesus followed, Saturday was the day of rest. And in Judaism, the Messiah accomplish these things:

- He will return all Jews to the service of God in all its details.
- He will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
- He will gather in the dispersed Jews to the land of Israel.
- He will bring the entire world to serve God in unity.

The Torah, which Christians believe to be God's word, states in several places that the laws of the Torah are eternal. See, for example, Deuteronomy 4:2, 29:13-14 (KJV 14-15), and 29:28 (KJV 29:29). In particular, see Deuteronomy 13:1-6 (KJV 12:32-13:5) where we are taught that we are not permitted to add to or detract from God's laws, and that if a prophet arises who teaches us to worship a new god we may not listen to him, even if he performs miracles. Yet, Christians believe that Jesus declared himself to be God, and that the laws of the Torah are no longer binding. How can Christianity claim to accept the Torah (the "Old" Testament) while rejecting its most basic principle?

[Tehol Beddict]

@hexa

I know of at least three commonly accepted ways for the implication to be read.

Oh, I see. In that case you misunderstand me. By 'bears the weight of' I intended to imply that contained within the cogito and the manner in which it was formulated was conditional truth, not that the statement itself was conditionally true. No further disussion is needed, thank you for your time.

Also, this is a theological debate, the point you were trying to make should have been made as a sidenote for a presentation involving the actual point of my original statement, or as a new discussion in a more relevant thread, not as a completely seperate topic in this one, that's not the way things work.

This digressionary discussion between the two of us is now officially closed on my end.

[Hexa]

@hexa

I know of at least three commonly accepted ways for the implication to be read.

Oh, I see. In that case you misunderstand me. By 'bears the weight of' I intended to imply that contained within the cogito and the manner in which it was formulated was conditional truth, not that the statement itself was conditionally true. No further disussion is needed, thank you for your time.

Well, that's not a possible interpretation of what you said, though. Also, it's not formulated as conditional truth; it's formulated as a conditional and is true or you can say it is a true conditional statement.

"I think therefore I exist. One of the most cliche philisophical quotes of all time, yet it holds the weight of conditional truth."

The important part paraphrased, "The quote, 'I think therefore I exist', holds the weight of conditional truth." The object is the quote, conditional truth is interpreted in the way I discussed earlier, and the most salient meaning of "holds the weight of" in this sense is equivalent to "has the same foundation as."

Also, this is a theological debate, the point you were trying to make should have been made as a sidenote for a presentation involving the actual point of my original statement, or as a new discussion in a more relevant thread, not as a completely seperate topic in this one, that's not the way things work.

This digressionary discussion between the two of us is now officially closed on my end.

Would you honestly have preferred I start a new thread based on your poor use of one term? Regardless, a discussion of meaning is inexorably part of any decent theological discussion, as is form. It's appropriate, then, to comment on phrases which aren't in accordance with proper structure. Plus, it would have taken a lot less time if you were honest about adding meaningless fluff to your previous statement. The cogito's conditional form didn't matter one bit in the discussion and you even used a term inappropriately. It's a terrible thing to do, and should be commented on. (also, digression works fine; you don't need to add discussion to it, because the word digression normally implies discussion)

[skunkworks]

here a little something more.

"OK, a little quiz. Who am I talking about?
He was born to a virgin by immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy
spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy. When he was born the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety. All male children under the age of two were slain by the ruler as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the saviour of men and led a moral and humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out devils and raising the dead. He was put to death on the cross between two thieves. He descended to hell and rose from the dead to ascend back to heaven.21

Sounds exactly like Jesus doesn’t it? But it’s not. That is how they described the Eastern saviour god known as Virishna 1,200 years before Jesus is claimed to have been born."

"Here are just some of the ‘Son of God’ heroes who play the lead role in stories which mirror those attributed to Jesus and almost all were worshipped long before Jesus was even heard of:

Khrishna of Hindostan; Buddha Sakia of India; Salivahana of Bermuda; Osiris and Horus
of Egypt; Odin of Scandinavia; Crite of Chaldea; Zoroaster of Persia; Baal and Taut of
Phoenicia; Indra of Tibet; Bali of Afghanistan; Jao of Nepal; Wittoba of Bilingonese;
Tammuz of Syria and Babylon; Attis of Phrygia; Xamolxis of Thrace; Zoar of the
Bonzes; Adad of Assyria; Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam; Alcides of Thebes;
Mikado of the Sintoos; Beddru of Japan; Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillahm, of the Druids;
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls; Cadmus of Greece; Hil and Feta of Mandaites; Gentaut
and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico; Universal Monarch of the Sibyls; Ischy of Formosa; Divine
Teacher of Plato; Holy One of Xaca; Fohi and Tien of China; Adonis, son of virgin lo, of
Greece; Ixion and Quirinus of Rome; Prometheus of the Caucasus; and Mohammed or
Mahomet, of Arabia."

Many of the stories attributed to jesus are just like the stories of theses people who existed way before him.

Mmm, while Jesus did exist, the NT is kind of hoaky. Some of the stories mention him healing people but I think it was more like spiritual healing. He was probably very bright, and had an effect on people. Although, while he was alive his following was actually pretty small.

I always thought Jesus's name was Yehoshua(Joshua), which is basically Yeshua in Hebrew.

[Tehol Beddict]

It's digressionary, by the way:

Main Entry: di·gres·sion
Pronunciation: -'gre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or an instance of digressing in a discourse or other usually organized literary work
2 archaic : a going aside
- di·gres·sion·al /-'gresh-n&l, -&n-&l/ adjective
- di·gres·sion·ary /-'gre-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for disgression:

1. digression
2. digressions
3. discretion
4. discretions
5. designation
6. dissection
7. dissipation
8. dissociation
9. digressional
10. desiccation
You threw an extra s in there. Twice in a row :laugh How you do like those technical beans? Not important to a discussion about god, huh? And yes, I could have said digression instead. I didn't.

I said it was closed because it is not appropriate regarding any possible misinterpretation of my point in the original statement. This is important to learn or people would break off debates with a post solely to point out instances of misspelling in cases where it was irrelevant to the matter at hand, as you see in the above paragraph. I've already acknowledged that my usage may be poor due to my general ignorance on the subject, but that I don't believe it to be fully incorrect due to my intention concerning 'holds the weight of' Which no one, most relevantly the person whom I was addressing, seemed to need any clarification on or felt the need to correct. I guess it must have been effective in relaying my point then, which would make an off topic discussion entirely about that the wrong course of action.

[Another way in which to make an off-topic point about something holding no relevance to the matter at hand in a thread of this nature is to do so through pm. I don't suggest you pm me, as I don't particularly care due to the fact that I effectively relayed my point to the person I was speaking to {and because I have 98 pm's :/}, but it is knowledge for future reference. You're welcome.]

And by 'holds the weight of' I in no way implied 'has the same foundation as', that's your mistake, not mine. Perhaps I should have said contains conditional truth? Existance would be the conditional truth, or weight, held by the the cogito, would it not?

Regardless, you may pm me about it if you wish, this really shouldn't be being disussed in this thread. Be warned, though, that I am likely to read what you have to say and delete it without reply, as I feel I have sufficiently covered the subject and I don't believe that the integrity of my point in the original post is in jeopardy.

[Vicious ♥]

I dont believe in God.. I dont believe in something that I havent seen..
I think '' God '' was made up so poor people had something to believe in..
so that they wouldn't rob and hurt people because they were afraid of '' God "
well that is my opinion, and no one can change it :D

[OtacontheOtaku]

A man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, his story however, is given fluff and vigour which elevates him to a level he was not at. He was a son of god just as we all are.

[skunkworks]

A man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, his story however, is given fluff and vigour which elevates him to a level he was not at. He was a son of god just as we all are.

The NT was written for gentiles so they could convert to Christianity. Since "the Jews" rejected Jesus, Paul turned to the gentiles. If you read the NT closely it seems quite anti-semetic.

[Hexa]

I exist because I am capable of thought, or another level of intellectual awareness. Therefore my reality is crafted around the evolution of the collective consciousness of mankind.

I don't believe that is properly justified simply by the cogito. The property of existence isn't special to conscious, thinking creatures or animals in general; everything has the property of existence, or, well, everything that exists does. It's not so much that you exist because you're capable of thought; instead, you know you exist because you can think.

The theory that there are separate, individual realities is not very pragmatic, nor is it based on any hard principle. Science tells us that the world existed before conscious things existed. If each person created an individual reality, conforming only to a consensus, then much of science would be contingent; it thereby not pragmatic. It's even worse that consensus holds science not to be contingent. Anyway, since there are other viable explanations for reality, such as materialism etc., which are much more pragmatic and have a similarly strong philosophical base, I think it's only appropriate that a person tosses out the idea of individual realities.

My point is that I exist for the sake of my existence. 'Tis true that the ideals and standards I live under are not my own and I struggled with that for quite some time during the the mid-teen years of my life. That was never important though, as I came to realize. The why doesn't matter, it is. My thought holds the power of creation in itself, making us all gods in our own right because without the realization that we are, there is no truth to our existence. It would be a shame to waste such unlmited potential and power because I overlook what is because I can't answer the why. Our purpose is survival, our survival just operates a bit differently. As our minds evolved we discovered the ability to essentially create our own environments and adapt them to our needs. Then as the constant evolution of our environment became a seperate entity, we had to evolve along with it. Society was born in this way, and our existance is an individual adaptation to our societal environment, which is an adaptive and evolving being all its own. It's a unique and complicated symbiotic relationship advanced beyond our comprehension and beyond our ability to escape. I suppose you could view society itself as some sort of post-modern god, but on the flip side of that, we are it's god, creator, and all that jazz. Which sort of reflects on the actual relationship between 'god' and man. Odd that way.

I think this idea, again, is much too severe. Anyhow, it's important to note that God has a very bizarre and very precise definition, due to centuries of theological work meant to render God not immediately absurd. Being able to create things ex nihilo doesn't sufficiently clarify God; so, even if you suppose yourself to have that particular ability, then you're still not a god in the Christian sense.

A good discussion about the tenets of atheism should properly deal first with epistemology, and not on the form of an atheistic worldview; that is to say, in response to someone saying (basically) that God makes him feel better about the world, I would argue about how he knows God exists. The question whether someone should feel good about God (because then there are absolute truths) or feel good regardless of God first relies on whether or not God exists. From there, go ahead with whatever idealist gibberish you want to spout.

[Knifemundo]

I dont believe in God.. I dont believe in something that I havent seen..
I think '' God '' was made up so poor people had something to believe in..
so that they wouldn't rob and hurt people because they were afraid of '' God "
well that is my opinion, and no one can change it :D

In that case i don't believe in the rest of the universe because i haven't seen it. All i have to say about this is take your watch, wether it be digital or not. Now set it on the floor and smash it to pieces by a hammer. Now wait 6 billion years and watch it build itself again. Likely? I don't think so. Don't you find it odd how the universe was pieced together so perfectly to work so efficiently, or how things just happened by "nature"? Now let nature put your clock back together to have it keep time perfectly and serve the purpose it was built for. I don't think "nature" will do that. Something must have thought this stuff out. Otherwise it would be the biggest coincedence ever. If you don't believe in god then you probably believe in aliens. Maybe somewhere in that huge universe you can't see, so you don't believe in, this whole coincedence must have happened also.

[maj1n]

In that case i don't believe in the rest of the universe because i haven't seen it. All i have to say about this is take your watch, wether it be digital or not. Now set it on the floor and smash it to pieces by a hammer. Now wait 6 billion years and watch it build itself again. Likely? I don't think so. Don't you find it odd how the universe was pieced together so perfectly to work so efficiently, or how things just happened by "nature"? Now let nature put your clock back together to have it keep time perfectly and serve the purpose it was built for. I don't think "nature" will do that. Something must have thought this stuff out. Otherwise it would be the biggest coincedence ever. If you don't believe in god then you probably believe in aliens. Maybe somewhere in that huge universe you can't see, so you don't believe in, this whole coincedence must have happened also.
The universe is believed because of the evidence which inferrs it, sight itself is but a very poor aspect of evidence gathering.

As for your point of the universe being 'fine-tuned which means it was designed' that is a fallacy for you have nothing to compare it to, also, evolution, a process which has no intelligent guiding, can create complex structures on-par or surpassing anything humans have designed.

[Knifemundo]

The universe is believed because of the evidence which inferrs it, sight itself is but a very poor aspect of evidence gathering.

As for your point of the universe being 'fine-tuned which means it was designed' that is a fallacy for you have nothing to compare it to, also, evolution, a process which has no intelligent guiding, can create complex structures on-par or surpassing anything humans have designed.

Exactly, so you believe in aliens right? Don't you think if like you say evolution, a process which has no intelligent guiding created humans then why do we not see other life forms under different conditions? A carbon based lifeform that lives without the need for our types of means of support. Why just lifeforms on earth? It's just too coincidental. I'm not saying i don't believe in evolution. I put science and religion together. Splitting it is just idiotic. But science has only gone so far, it can only explain so much. Even the start of our galaxy is just a theory. I can't wait for one or the other to be proven.

[sadated_peon]

In that case i don't believe in the rest of the universe because i haven't seen it.
What part of the rest of the universe don’t you believe? The universe is defined by what is known, generally referred to as the known universe.
All i have to say about this is take your watch, wether it be digital or not. Now set it on the floor and smash it to pieces by a hammer. Now wait 6 billion years and watch it build itself again. Likely? I don't think so. Don't you find it odd how the universe was pieced together so perfectly to work so efficiently, or how things just happened by "nature"? Now let nature put your clock back together to have it keep time perfectly and serve the purpose it was built for. I don't think "nature" will do that. Something must have thought this stuff out. Otherwise it would be the biggest coincedence ever. If you don't believe in god then you probably believe in aliens. Maybe somewhere in that huge universe you can't see, so you don't believe in, this whole coincedence must have happened also.
Well let me give you another question, in response.
If you take a watch and smash it to pieces how long will it take for god to put it back together again? Why don’t you break your watch right now, and then PM me when god puts it back together again.

[maj1n]

Exactly, so you believe in aliens right? Don't you think if like you say evolution, a process which has no intelligent guiding created humans then why do we not see other life forms under different conditions? A carbon based lifeform that lives without the need for our types of means of support. Why just lifeforms on earth? It's just too coincidental. I'm not saying i don't believe in evolution. I put science and religion together. Splitting it is just idiotic. But science has only gone so far, it can only explain so much. Even the start of our galaxy is just a theory. I can't wait for one or the other to be proven.
Why? because the conditions were not enough to start complex organisms on-par with earth.

Your argument is one of incredulity, ie 'omg thats amazing, i cant explain it, thus god did it' its also a fallacy.

[Hordika]

If you think about I don't believe theres a god since evolution is anti-god. I mean when we came out of the primordial ooze we started dying because of oxygen. Thats right oxygen is corrosive in fact rust is because of oxygenation and thus we had to evolve into things that can process oxygen. And also look at the Galipogose Islands where nothing has defences because of no predator and evolve to get food.
Originally Posted by Knifemundo
Exactly, so you believe in aliens right? Don't you think if like you say evolution, a process which has no intelligent guiding created humans then why do we not see other life forms under different conditions? A carbon based lifeform that lives without the need for our types of means of support. Why just lifeforms on earth? It's just too coincidental. I'm not saying i don't believe in evolution. I put science and religion together. Splitting it is just idiotic. But science has only gone so far, it can only explain so much. Even the start of our galaxy is just a theory. I can't wait for one or the other to be proven.
I'm not bashing you but science only appears to have taken a few steps too far because religion is in the same place as it was 1500 years ago

[Knifemundo]

I'm not you miss the point about the watch. The point is that the watch was created by us.. humans. An intelligent being. God isn't going to put the watch together. It's called a metaphor. It's just too coincidental that nature was made so perfectly. Right the conditions may not be right for lifeforms on the other planets, but even then there should be lifeforms adapted to those types of conditions because of evolution. Maybe not this solar system but perhaps another. Then there comes in possesion. This has been happening for centuries, and science obviously hasn't come to a logical conclusion about any of it. Sure they say the person is crazy, but even people with no background for phsycological disorders were reported to show this kind of action. I'm saying neither science can prove our existence, and neither can religion. I just find it wierd how the bible states things that hadn't occured yet. Like about the world being round and such. Then again so has science, thats why i follow both. I also never heard of that story stated on the first page about that pre-time diety with a very very similar story like that of jesus. Then again so has science, thats why i follow both. Instead of trying to argue with me why don't you point out opinions instead of insults people. I came in here of good faith, some people just get all hysterical when people say things that don't fall with their opinions. Some people come in here to fight, not to learn. SHEESH!

[Knifemundo]

If you think about I don't believe theres a god since evolution is anti-god. I mean when we came out of the primordial ooze we started dying because of oxygen. Thats right oxygen is corrosive in fact rust is because of oxygenation and thus we had to evolve into things that can process oxygen. And also look at the Galipogose Islands where nothing has defences because of no predator and evolve to get food.

I'm not bashing you but science only appears to have taken a few steps too far because religion is in the same place as it was 1500 years ago

Yea alot of people think that. I am a firm believer of evolution, becuase, come on it's right in front of you. I took a shower right now, bacteria on my body is evolving at this second... But anyways, when i see those fish on the cars with like Jesus<Darwin. Thats so retarded. Neither has proven anything over either. I believe we could have evolved from munkies and such. What if the process in which god "made" us. The whole six days and stuff was in fact the evolutionary process itself. Days could mean eras to him. In fact it comes down to translation. In the last book it states that the end of times is near, yet how LONG has it been? Maybe soon to this "higher power" isn't so soon to us. Things could have been misread over the years. I remember taking an anthropolgy class back in the day, like five years ago where it showed so much factual evidence of our evolution. It's fact! Religion can't disprove that stuff. I think there should be a fish emblem with jesus and darwin holding hands, wait thats homo. Shaking hands. Yea there we go.

[Jimnast]

God sux, if god exists then so does superman, wooohooo rock on!

[maj1n]

I'm not you miss the point about the watch. The point is that the watch was created by us.. humans. An intelligent being. God isn't going to put the watch together. It's called a metaphor. It's just too coincidental that nature was made so perfectly.

this is where you fail, your personal incredulity is blinding your opinion, you have no rational basis to state that nature itself, is too perfect to arise without a designer.


Right the conditions may not be right for lifeforms on the other planets, but even then there should be lifeforms adapted to those types of conditions because of evolution.

No, evolution does not state that lifeforms must arise, it merely states that lifeforms if they exist (as complex organisms really) will change over time.


I just find it wierd how the bible states things that hadn't occured yet. Like about the world being round and such.

so you also follow the bible when it says that grass came before AND after man (inconsistancy), man was created before AND after animals (inconsistancy).

And that rain comes from heaven's windows? or that people who believe in God do not suffer if they drink poison?


What if the process in which god "made" us. The whole six days and stuff was in fact the evolutionary process itself. Days could mean eras to him.

No this is wrong, days means days, the bible is incorrect, you cant defend the bible by blatantly changing the meaning of the word, can i say 'dog' and actually mean a 'cat'?

[sadated_peon]

I'm not you miss the point about the watch. The point is that the watch was created by us.. humans. An intelligent being. God isn't going to put the watch together. It's called a metaphor. It's just too coincidental that nature was made so perfectly. Right the conditions may not be right for lifeforms on the other planets,
As the watch was created by, us.. humans, why do you expect nature to replicate it.

You sound like you are trying to make the watchmakers analogy by William Paley. is that what your trying to do?

[skunkworks]

tNo, evolution does not state that lifeforms must arise, it merely states that lifeforms if they exist (as complex organisms really) will change over time.

I believe in evolution, but evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started (I mean the universe itself too).

No this is wrong, days means days, the bible is incorrect, you cant defend the bible by blatantly changing the meaning of the word, can i say 'dog' and actually mean a 'cat'?

The word yom is used for day, but in Hebrew that word doesn't always mean a 24-hour day. Most Biblical scholars argue that it does indeed refer to a 24-hour period.

[maj1n]

I believe in evolution, but evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started (I mean the universe itself too).

*scratches head* so your agreeing with my statement then?


The word yom is used for day, but in Hebrew that word doesn't always mean a 24-hour day. Most Biblical scholars argue that it does indeed refer to a 24-hour period.
[/quote]
It does mean literally one day, because if it doesnt then that means that all plants were created on third day (thousands of years) then subject to a thousand years of darkness till the next day, which means they would all have died out.

So either you have literally, a 6-day creation which is scientifically wrong, or a thousand year creation where plants existed for a thousand years without light for photosynthesis, which is also wrong.

[tootaa18]

Well let me give you another question, in response.
If you take a watch and smash it to pieces how long will it take for god to put it back together again? Why don’t you break your watch right now, and then PM me when god puts it back together again.

from what i have learned from my religion that won`t happen

simply because the age of miracles has ended a very long time ago

God gave his prophets the miracles to make the people believe in the religions they brought

he gave Moses the stick that could turn into a snake
he gave Jesus the ability to cure deseases
he gave Sulaiman the ability to speak to animals
etc etc.....

and all those miracles ended with the death of the prophets


so what can the people who were born after the age of prophets do?
they can use their minds to figure things out

okay, so you believe that the universe was created simply by nature
does that mean that if you came across a castle in the middle of nowhere and i told you it was built and crafted by nature would you believe me??
you would think that i`m a fool because it`s impossible

we all see rocks that were crafted by wind...does it look like castles?
i will not give it 6 million years, i`ll give it a 1000. and even by that time it won`t look anything like a castle becasue a brainless thing like the wind will never have the ability to create something as complicated as a castle

speaking of creating, some people say that the big bang created the universe
but who created the big bang? who started it? doesn`t everything has to have a creator?

who created the clothes you wear? the cars you drive? this computer your using right now?
they were all created by humans. the beings that have brains and intelligence to creat things such as cars, planes , rockets and many many more advanced things

so this huge universe "which is far more complicated than a car or a rocket" must have a creater with huge intelligence and not by something lifeless and brainless as the big bang

thats what i think :)

[maj1n]

okay, so you believe that the universe was created simply by nature
does that mean that if you came across a castle in the middle of nowhere and i told you it was built and crafted by nature would you believe me??
you would think that i`m a fool because it`s impossible

not because its impossible, but because of induction, that i have witnessed and know or have been taught that it is humans and humans alone who have built the structure known as 'castles' that i would say that a 'castle' was built by humans.

Your example does not work, for you are already assuming our knowledge that we know castles are built by humans.


we all see rocks that were crafted by wind...does it look like castles?
i will not give it 6 million years, i`ll give it a 1000. and even by that time it won`t look anything like a castle becasue a brainless thing like the wind will never have the ability to create something as complicated as a castle

Again, your statement does not work, but if you are comparing nature to a castle, then logically, you are saying humans created nature, for your examples only list humans creating structures.


speaking of creating, some people say that the big bang created the universe
but who created the big bang? who started it? doesn`t everything has to have a creator?

No, not even human creation, is the same CREATION as the creation of matter, for human creation is merely the transforming or reconfiguring existing matter into a structure for our own use, not creation from nothing.


who created the clothes you wear? the cars you drive? this computer your using right now?
they were all created by humans. the beings that have brains and intelligence to creat things such as cars, planes , rockets and many many more advanced things

True, and how does this prove that nature is created by God?

p1.Humans create human structures
c1.Therefore God made nature

That logical statement, does not work out, your premise does not lead to your conclusion.


so this huge universe "which is far more complicated than a car or a rocket" must have a creater with huge intelligence and not by something lifeless and brainless as the big bang

ahh you are saying that 'complex structures' equate to an intelligant designer, however, since an atom is less complicated than a car or rocket, does that mean incredibly small less complex structures are not designed by an intelligent designer?

Furthermore does that mean that the designer requires an intelligent designer himself? leading to an infinite regression.

Two major flaws of your metaphor.

thats what i think
[/quote]

[Kayvaan Shrike]

my post wont be long but here goes...

my opinion on god is there really isnt just one... i mean out of all the universes and worlds out there how can you think that our god is the only one... its just idiotic to say that you are the child of the only god when thats not true... what aobut the other gods on this planet that belong to diferent religons so dont say that theres only one... because i bet some others out in th universe are thinking the same thing i am. so its ok to worship agod but there are more than 1 in all genders sizes colors...ect

[makaveli93]

god. god is all that is. the absolute. i am. god created this world of duality so we can experience what we know. God knew everything but wanted to experience it. God created this world of duality and opposites so it would be possible to experience things. For instance, you cannot have cold if you cannot compare it to heat. In order to experience something you need an opposite. This is just one of many worlds god created. This is just a part of the whole of reality. You are not the body, you are not the mind, all is one, here and now. I am.

[makaveli93]

all religions are right all religions are wrong. it depends how you interpret it.

[AdreneLyne]

Yeah, what he said.

[makaveli93]

in response to SakashiUchina, there is only one god because all is one. and god is not a gender or a form. god is. From what you were saying i think you view what god is in a 3dimensional perspective.But, god is all that is

[AstralSky]

What is god? ƒirst, there isn't a real answer. Or, if there is, then there has to be more than one. If god is all, then you could say god is all there is. There is a god. I'm gussing your implying that god made the world through us and everything everywhere. Thus, god is Dog through Evoultion. God IS the Religon you practice. It's about the life of the stream. the constant flow of continous life. God would still go on then if the Human Race destroyed the world. So, if we were the ONLY planet which God created to sustain life for instance, would he then build another one?

What if the Universe decided to create itself. It just happened. Therefore nothing really happened. It's not like there was anything before it. So how could you possibly know if this God created it?

[makaveli93]

correct. god is all that there is. and the way the universe was created was simply an idea of the absolute. all that is. god. thats how the big bang was formed. and yes god will still be there if humans decide to kill eachother because in reality there is no death. the body may die but whos to say you are the body? we are all eternal and we are all one. and ur saying there is no answer to what god is. but you answered that question in that statement. "god is"

[opium4themasses]

Please try to restate this is a way that doesn't suck. While you may think it's a clever word game, you still haven't addressed the thrust of the argument.

[makaveli93]

how could i restate something so it doesnt suck. i say it as it is. nothing less. and i havnt been reading the past arguments i was just simply stating what i believe.

[sadated_peon]

from what i have learned from my religion that won`t happen

simply because the age of miracles has ended a very long time ago

God gave his prophets the miracles to make the people believe in the religions they brought

he gave Moses the stick that could turn into a snake
he gave Jesus the ability to cure deseases
he gave Sulaiman the ability to speak to animals
etc etc.....

and all those miracles ended with the death of the prophets
really I could have sworn I heard a recent miracle of putting faces into sandwiches.
okay, so you believe that the universe was created simply by nature
does that mean that if you came across a castle in the middle of nowhere and i told you it was built and crafted by nature would you believe me??
you would think that i`m a fool because it`s impossible

we all see rocks that were crafted by wind...does it look like castles?
i will not give it 6 million years, i`ll give it a 1000. and even by that time it won`t look anything like a castle becasue a brainless thing like the wind will never have the ability to create something as complicated as a castle
ok, let me ask you a question, if you came across a castle in the middle of nowhere, would you expect it to be created by one person, the entire castle was designed and implemented by just one person, no one else helped at all. Would you think this, or would you think that a group of people built the castle, or what about something bigger than a castle like a city, would you think that was only built by one man.

Next when looking at this castle would you believe that the people who built it never failed at building a building before in their lifetimes. Would you believe that they were born and they new instinctively without testing or education how to build a castle. Or would you believe that these people made mistakes during their life, and learned how to build castle.

Next when looking at this castle would you think that ghost made, that incorporeal beings moved the bricks and put it together. Or would you think that physical being, like humans made it?

So to recap when you look at a castle you believe that it was created by many people, who made many mistakes, and where physical in body.

If your analogy holds that a castle like the universe then you must accept that there are many gods, that aren’t perfect, and are physical beings.
speaking of creating, some people say that the big bang created the universe
but who created the big bang? who started it? doesn`t everything has to have a creator?
really? Does it?
Then who created god?
who created the clothes you wear? the cars you drive? this computer your using right now?
they were all created by humans. the beings that have brains and intelligence to creat things such as cars, planes , rockets and many many more advanced things

so this huge universe "which is far more complicated than a car or a rocket" must have a creater with huge intelligence and not by something lifeless and brainless as the big bang

I can think of something more complicated then all of those things, the human brain, and this was created by nature. We have seen the evolution of species that and show how nature created it.

[tootaa18]

Your example does not work
i didn`t notice any rule against using castles as an example so i believe it would work just fine ^_~

but if you are comparing nature to a castle, then logically, you are saying humans created nature, for your examples only list humans creating structures.


i`m not comparing nature to a castle i`m just giving a simple example and you didn`t understand it correctly

you guys say that the universe we know was crafted by nature so i said would you believe me if i told you that the nature created a castle?

btw you said
not because its impossible, but because of induction, that i have witnessed and know or have been taught that it is humans and humans alone who have built the structure known as 'castles' that i would say that a 'castle' was built by humans.
why are you finding it hard to believe that the nature created a castle?
because castles are created only by humans?
correct me if i`m wrong. didn`t you guys say the the nature created humans?
doesn`t that logicaly mean that the nature is also capable of creating castles since nature created humans in the first place??

since an atom is less complicated than a car or rocket, does that mean incredibly small less complex structures are not designed by an intelligent designer?


of course not
a single brick is worthless but if you gather a huge amount of bricks you can build yourself a massive castle. and that`s when the single brick becomes valuable because it`s part of a bigger thing

an atom or a cell is pretty much the same thing :wink

Furthermore does that mean that the designer requires an intelligent designer himself?
no one created/designed God that`s why people worship him. because he is the creator of all things.

ok, let me ask you a question, if you came across a castle in the middle of nowhere, would you expect it to be created by one person
you`re comparing human strength to God`s and that is totally wrong because a human no all humans together are no match against God.

Then who created god?

as i saide before. nobody did. HE is the creator of all things

I can think of something more complicated then all of those things, the human brain, and this was created by nature. We have seen the evolution of species that and show how nature created it.
ok then who created this nature?
who created the sun, the moon, the wind, the other planets out there?
and more importantly who created the big bang?

[falconmain]

there is something funny to me about trying to have a logical scientific debate over a religious idioligy which by its very nature is about excepting the fact that you put faith into something which you cannot prove. "god" using the term in the most general way is something which has the power to break every law of nature and thus is excempt from scientific reason or logic. so it is impossible to debate the existance of such a "god" in a scientific manner. does he/she/it exist? it is simply a matter of faith, it cannot be proven or disproven.

[sadated_peon]

you`re comparing human strength to God`s and that is totally wrong because a human no all humans together are no match against God.
I am giving you your same analogy back to you. If it is wrong it is because you analogy does not work.
as i saide before. nobody did. HE is the creator of all things
you said
“doesn`t everything has to have a creator?”
if everything needs a creator then god needs a creator.
If you don’t believe everything needs a creator, then no one needed to create the singularity.
ok then who created this nature?
who created the sun, the moon, the wind, the other planets out there?
and more importantly who created the big bang?
But now you have lost your argument. You pointed out things that we know were created by humans as example that complicated structures need designers. I showed you that this reasoning is flawed, I gave examples of even more complicated structure and they were created by random change.

random chance causes nature, sun, moon, wind, other planets as it caused our brain.

The singularity always existed.

[tootaa18]

I am giving you your same analogy back to you. If it is wrong it is because you analogy does not work.

not because it doesn`t work but because you don`t want to believe that there is a God....so no matter how hard i try to convince you you won`t believe me

if everything needs a creator then god needs a creator.
nope he doesn`t

But now you have lost your argument
oh really ?
i hate to say this to you but i still didn`t recieve any proof from you that there is no God.....so i guess you can`t really say that you won the argument when you don`t have anything to prove yourself with :wink

random chance causes nature, sun, moon, wind, other planets as it caused our brain.

i said it in my last post and i`ll say it again with detail
since this so called "random chance" or "nature" that created everything could create us so perfectly. (our eyes are excatly the same size and shape. and our legs are perfectly the same height and the same size)

doesn`t that logically lead us to assume that this random chance could create things that the human brain could create?

if you say yes then you would be lying cuz i didn`t see the wind create a castle nor did i see the sun create a car.

and if you say no then your theory would be wrong.

either way you lose this argument so there is no use continuing this disscution

i`m outta here.

[Nybarius]

Question: why debate a matter of faith?

The language of the ideal debate is, like the definition of law, reason without passion.

Faith speaks a different tongue; the two can't understand one another.

[sadated_peon]

not because it doesn`t work but because you don`t want to believe that there is a God....so no matter how hard i try to convince you you won`t believe me
I gave you your analogy back to you, in fact it is not even your analogy it is William Paley watchmakers analogy, and my response is done by David Hume.

The response has nothing to do with denying god, it instead continues the analogy to describe further the nature of the world.

You compare the universe to a castle,
Intelligence is needed in the building of the castles, so then intelligence is needed in the building of the universe.
Many people are needed in castles, so then many people are needed in the building of the universe.
The builders of the castles made mistakes, so the builders of the universe made mistakes.
The builders of castles had bodies, so the builders of the universe had bodies.

If you don’t believe that what is true for castles is true for the universe, then first comparison doesn’t work. If you do believe that what is true for castles is true for the universe, then the universe was made by many intelligent beings that made mistakes and had bodies.
nope he doesn`t
Then not everything needs a creator, and the singularity for the big bang doesn’t need a creator.
oh really ?
i hate to say this to you but i still didn`t recieve any proof from you that there is no God.....so i guess you can`t really say that you won the argument when you don`t have anything to prove yourself with
Your argument consisted on saying that “so this huge universe "which is far more complicated than a car or a rocket" must have a creater”
But gave you examples of this that are more complicated rockets that were created by nature, I explained that nature created more complex things than humans ever have.

Therefore you have lost your argument, as you no longer have evidence to say that the more complex things are the more they to have to have intelligence behind them. I showed you that this is wrong, which means your premise is wrong, which means you lost your argument.
i said it in my last post and i`ll say it again with detail
since this so called "random chance" or "nature" that created everything could create us so perfectly. (our eyes are excatly the same size and shape. and our legs are perfectly the same height and the same size)
That our eyes are the same size is due to the fact that the same natural process that created one created the other, same goes for the legs.

doesn`t that logically lead us to assume that this random chance could create things that the human brain could create?
What? This makes absoulty no sense. First off humans are not perfect, not in the slightest. Next is that you once again are comparing castles to the universe, and I have already shown how this works out against you.

if you say yes then you would be lying cuz i didn`t see the wind create a castle nor did i see the sun create a car.

and if you say no then your theory would be wrong.

either way you lose this argument so there is no use continuing this disscution

i`m outta here.
I have already explained you how you analogy works against you, I suggest you actually read what I wrote this time.

[Sands]

i've been hearing ppl say things like "god controls everything, nothing can happen without him" i personally don't understand this because if there was god who controlled everything then why do ppl believe in different gods? if he controls everything then why do ppl believe in gods other than Him?
if let's say buddha controls everything then why do ppl believe in things other than buddha? i He controlled everything down to the things we say on this forum then why are we debating about him? i don't believe he controls everything. your opinions?

[makaveli93]

lol buddha never claimed to be a god or wanted people to worship him. he didnt even want to teach buddhism at first. the truth is something that cannot be taught it is something you experience.

[Sands]

that doesn't show me why some people say that god controls everything

[opium4themasses]

correct. god is all that there is. and the way the universe was created was simply an idea of the absolute. all that is. god. thats how the big bang was formed. and yes god will still be there if humans decide to kill eachother because in reality there is no death. the body may die but whos to say you are the body? we are all eternal and we are all one. and ur saying there is no answer to what god is. but you answered that question in that statement. "god is"
OK, To address your complaint on my complaint. Reread your message here. This message talks about the nature of a thing you can't even show exists. You offer no reason to belive any of your claims. Please support your claims, and at the same time, try to make your messages slightly more penetrable.

[makaveli93]

okay, think before this material world was created (the universe). The only thing existed was god. which can be known as all that is, the absolute. God knew everything because god is everything. But there is a difference between knowing and experiencing. Everyone can relate to this, you can think about being rich but you'd much rather experience it. So god created this material world so he can experience such things.

But in order to experience things you need opposites correct? you would not be able to be happy if there wasn't mad to compare to. You couldn't be hot if there wasn't cold to compare to. That is why this world has suffering.

God gave everyone free will. That is why everyone lives in their own world. This world is only perspectives. Think about it, when you are born you are told a certain colour is green. a certain colour is purple. However, how do you know that the person who told you these colours names see the same thing as you? You see things how you want to see things. The choice is up to you. This is why religions can be right and they can be false. It is all up to you, how you interpret things.

so to recap everything i just said. God is all that is, everything, the absolute.
I hope this clears up some things. If you still don't understand feel free to add me at coolmatthew123@hotmail.com and I will gladly answer your questions.

[maj1n]

okay, think before this material world was created (the universe). The only thing existed was god.

unsupported with evidence.


which can be known as all that is, the absolute. God knew everything because god is everything. But there is a difference between knowing and experiencing.

if God is omniscient, he by default, has knowledge of experience, he knows ALL.


Everyone can relate to this, you can think about being rich but you'd much rather experience it. So god created this material world so he can experience such things.

unsupported by evidence, also, you have contradicted Gods omniscience.


But in order to experience things you need opposites correct? you would not be able to be happy if there wasn't mad to compare to. You couldn't be hot if there wasn't cold to compare to. That is why this world has suffering.

unsupported by evidence, also, there is no logic behind needing opposites to experience anything, light has no opposite, and if there needs to be opposites, where is the opposite of God? where is the opposite of matter?


so to recap everything i just said. God is all that is, everything, the absolute.
I hope this clears up some things. If you still don't understand feel free to add me at coolmatthew123@hotmail.com and I will gladly answer your questions.
unsupported by evidence.

Your notion of God is purely your own, with no evidence to support it, its basically a childish fantasy.

[Knifemundo]

this is where you fail, your personal incredulity is blinding your opinion, you have no rational basis to state that nature itself, is too perfect to arise without a designer.


No, evolution does not state that lifeforms must arise, it merely states that lifeforms if they exist (as complex organisms really) will change over time.


so you also follow the bible when it says that grass came before AND after man (inconsistancy), man was created before AND after animals (inconsistancy).

And that rain comes from heaven's windows? or that people who believe in God do not suffer if they drink poison?


No this is wrong, days means days, the bible is incorrect, you cant defend the bible by blatantly changing the meaning of the word, can i say 'dog' and actually mean a 'cat'?

The bible was translated over and over again. Evolution also states survival of the fittest. "if they exist" Why don't they, oh becuase conditions aren't right. Pretty simple explination, just like that god doesn't exist, just becuase we can't see him/her. Obviously you didn't read my post becuase i'm not stating any point about incredulity of either side. Stop bashing and start debating. Please don't insult character and just talk about the facts. Thank you.

[Knifemundo]

unsupported with evidence.


if God is omniscient, he by default, has knowledge of experience, he knows ALL.


unsupported by evidence, also, you have contradicted Gods omniscience.


unsupported by evidence, also, there is no logic behind needing opposites to experience anything, light has no opposite, and if there needs to be opposites, where is the opposite of God? where is the opposite of matter?


unsupported by evidence.

Your notion of God is purely your own, with no evidence to support it, its basically a childish fantasy.

First of all what is light if there is no dark. You do need an opposite to label something. What if there was no pain, how you would you know something was pleasurable, you wouldn't be able to label it. Also don't be rude by calling millions of peoples beliefs, childish fantasies. I doubt a childish fantasy would last this long, don't you think. Where did earth come from, and where did whatever the earth came from come from? Science is only gonna explain so much until it halts. Don't be so hasty to insult people for believing in something beyond science. Until one disproves the other you have no right, as well as anyone else does, to say either one is false.

[maj1n]

The bible was translated over and over again.

and?


Evolution also states survival of the fittest. "if they exist" Why don't they, oh becuase conditions aren't right. Pretty simple explination, just like that god doesn't exist, just becuase we can't see him/her. Obviously you didn't read my post becuase i'm not stating any point about incredulity of either side. Stop bashing and start debating. Please don't insult character and just talk about the facts. Thank

Actually your point is about incredulity, you have no evidence of God, yet you believe in it, thats not rational.


First of all what is light if there is no dark. You do need an opposite to label something.

darkness is not the opposite of light, it is the absence of light.


What if there was no pain, how you would you know something was pleasurable, you wouldn't be able to label it.

because your body has the instinctive response to seek more of such sensations.


Also don't be rude by calling millions of peoples beliefs, childish fantasies. I doubt a childish fantasy would last this long, don't you think.

Tell me what separates your belief of God from any other supernatural creature, let us say, a faerie.



Where did earth come from, and where did whatever the earth came from come from?
Science is only gonna explain so much until it halts. Don't be so hasty to insult people for believing in something beyond science.

Science has not explained some things, and how does this support your argument of the existance of God? you have no evidence of God, your belief is not rational.

This does not work.

p1.Science cant explain something
c1.Therefore God did it.


Until one disproves the other you have no right, as well as anyone else does, to say either one is false.

actually it is rational to not believe that which there is no evidence for.

If we take your approach, then every supernatural creature, elves, demons, unicorns, faeries, sucubusses, incubus, devil, super blobs and anything else that is a figment of ones imagination, has equal value in being believed.

Obviously such an approach is foolish.

[Sands]

okay, think before this material world was created (the universe). The only thing existed was god. which can be known as all that is, the absolute. God knew everything because god is everything. So god created this material world so he can experience such things.

first of all i can't afree that god was the only thing that existed.there is no proof that there even is god or he is just part of ppls faith. is that why god created earth?or is it just your assumptions and ideas?u cannot say that is the reason he created the world is because he wanted to experience things

But in order to experience things you need opposites correct? you would not be able to be happy if there wasn't mad to compare to. You couldn't be hot if there wasn't cold to compare to. That is why this world has suffering.

that is probably one of things i agree with u on. but is ther an opposite to everything? maybe maybe not but that is a good point.

God gave everyone free will. That is why everyone lives in their own world. This world is only perspectives. Think about it, when you are born you are told a certain colour is green. a certain colour is purple. However, how do you know that the person who told you these colours names see the same thing as you? You see things how you want to see things. The choice is up to you. This is why religions can be right and they can be false. It is all up to you, how you interpret things.

yes ppl have free will but why do some say he cantrols everything?
that means that u have no free will and that some ppl are suggesting we are all his puppets.(which i don't believe)
if there is a god then why doesn't he make everyone believe in him?
does he show his power?
as i a said before in order to acknowledge a god as a superior u must be convinced of his powers.

[Sands]

First of all what is light if there is no dark. You do need an opposite to label something. What if there was no pain, how you would you know something was pleasurable, you wouldn't be able to label it. Also don't be rude by calling millions of peoples beliefs, childish fantasies. I doubt a childish fantasy would last this long, don't you think. Where did earth come from, and where did whatever the earth came from come from? Science is only gonna explain so much until it halts. Don't be so hasty to insult people for believing in something beyond science. Until one disproves the other you have no right, as well as anyone else does, to say either one is false.
like maj1n said light is the absence of dark. the part about emotions is agreeable though and u make a good point.
science does create more answers tham beliefs but there are ppl who prefer it more simple and say everything is "god's will" or "god created it"

[Knifemundo]

like maj1n said light is the absence of dark. the part about emotions is agreeable though and u make a good point.
science does create more answers tham beliefs but there are ppl who prefer it more simple and say everything is "god's will" or "god created it"

Well i'm not sure about everything can be "god's will". Otherwise if we were given free will... it's not really "free will". Bah, i'm getting a headache, i'm going back to watching cartoons that make me laugh without having to think!

[opium4themasses]

I submit that you wouldn't know if you had free will or not. Now let's all get back to our ballistic trajectories.

[footprints007]

very intressting topic.

I belive there is a god. but that comes on faith some understanding and alittle bit of hope. by look at the world you see so many differnt religons that it makes you wonder :-p Every body has some form of religon it is what allowes most of us to get through day to day crap. I'm not trying to prove god exist by the way, I have more fun trying to prove he dosn't.

Now if we take the fact that ever cluture in the world has a religon, this can mean two things one. We all long for some prupes so we have created gods inoreder to give life meaning (also making death not as bad) or 2. We where created by a god that has installed in use the longing to follow after him (it). You must chose wich one you belive. lol

As socroites asked Do the Gods love puity because it is pious or is it pious because the Gods love it?
sorry I have to go to class I finsh this up ater. (didn't state a dam thing)

[Sands]

Well i'm not sure about everything can be "god's will". Otherwise if we were given free will... it's not really "free will". Bah, i'm getting a headache, i'm going back to watching cartoons that make me laugh without having to think!
exactly what i'm saying here!!!
why do ppl say everything is "god's will"?!!!

[Soredakeka?]

God is mythos. Simple as that. A crutch for weak people who have no true inner-strength to lean on when life turns up the heat. I refuse to believe that I was created to keep a lonely higher entity company. I refuse to believe that everything I experience especially suffering is premeditated by this all knowing being. Most importantly I refuse to believe that anyone that created me and my people would allow us to suffer.

[ANBU87]

God is mythos. Simple as that. A crutch for weak people who have no true inner-strength to lean on when life turns up the heat. I refuse to believe that I was created to keep a lonely higher entity company. I refuse to believe that everything I experience especially suffering is premeditated by this all knowing being. Most importantly I refuse to believe that anyone that created me and my people would allow us to suffer.
we cause ourselves to suffer. god doesnt create war. we do.

[opium4themasses]

we cause ourselves to suffer. god doesnt create war. we do.
This doesn't really address the "Problem of Evil" as even if humans create war, innocents still suffer, so God's 3 attributes or even "goodness" would still be in question. Nor does this address the idea of "natural evil". Narutal disasters cause massive suffering and destruction.

[maj1n]

And a further problem for bible-believers IS that it states God creates EVIL.

[Sands]

The bible was translated over and over again.
i have to comment on this...
who wrote the bible...man not God
these are written laws of what man believes are god's laws
yes, the bible was translated and as u know when translated may times to different languages the text doesn't stay the same.
the bible was once rewritten to add things someone wanted and all the previous ones were said to be destroyed.
this shows that these are not necessarily god's rules but we r living by a book created by a fellow human bieng
jesus did not
write the bible
the bible is written by man to what they think should be god's laws

[Cthulhu-versailles]

Thomas browne says that everything is God's will and that nature in itself is just an extension of Gods will. Like for example the sun turns around the earth... that's science but what made the sun able to have motion.. would be GOD. Thus if we as humans learn to perceive both nature and the ancient scriptures we will be closer to GOD. He does not say closer to understanding. In fact he says that God was not meant to be understood and that he simply is.

Point of me bringing up thomas brown is to point out the fundamental belief I think most God believers have, which isthe reason God exist is because he exist... what kind of argument is that.

Following this train of unbritled logic comes the nextargument, which I believe is inquiry into the other sides lack of evidence. Ironically though by demanding evidence that provs otherwise those that believe in God are also exempting themselvs from providing any evidence in God existance. The fact is that regradless of whatever theories are tossed out, you cannot inequiviquily prove what created the "universe"- notice I use universe in brackets, because the concept of the universe is merely a human denotion which in itself could be flawed.

No theory can go beyond it bounds, you cannot find the answer to a question if in fact the answer lies outside the spectrum of your question. The inductive logic used in making thoeries is vastly flawed because as a whole the actual knowledge gathered cannot be deemed a cannon of perfection. Thus as a result we are left with a never ending loop of waves that ride up a few feet but can never become tidal waves, because the place in which they are located was not meant to create such huge phenomenon.

My conclusion-Why does there have to be an answering to everything. We will never know exactly how the universe came to be, I don't think it's a question that can be answered. Therefore everything that everyone says in terms of theories... including myself is just unback theological or mystical invention of are unknown preconcevied biases.

With that said, here is my bias. No I do not believe in God. I believe in my own power and the idea of relative existance. I am here only because I am here to others!:amazed

[Sands]

With that said, here is my bias. No I do not believe in God. I believe in my own power and the idea of relative existance. I am here only because I am here to others!:amazed
exactly my opinion...
free will is nothing if god controls everything we have the power to decide for ourselves

[footprints007]

well the only way to pove God exastes is to prove one God is ture. think about it. Take the greek gods zeus, hara apollo... and so on. they allways fought amonst them selves, is that the way GOD should act? I don't think so socroties didn't think so. to try and prove God exist by God I am refering the the juda-christan God YHWH Ie the tirity for christans. Is to try and reason out God. now I understand most of your arguments but how do you explain this.



Point of me bringing up thomas brown is to point out the fundamental belief I think most God believers have, which isthe reason God exist is because he exist... what kind of argument is that.

Ok later you state that

The fact is that regradless of whatever theories are tossed out, you cannot inequiviquily prove what created the "universe"- notice I use universe in brackets, because the concept of the universe is merely a human denotion which in itself could be flawed.

now no matter what theory we as in the human race come up with it will be flawed...
I'm guessing that this is because you belive we don't have the higher brain leval to understan something as infinet as the universe. i agree :tem
but if we can't figure out this how are we supposed to figure out the fact that there is a GOD???? i MEAN come on think about it. the univers vs. GOD which is bigger... God would be. if that is that is the case then how are we supposed to prove that he is reall... buy your on logic that is.
(by the way I don't know who Tom Brown is lol)

My conclusion-Why does there have to be an answering to everything. We will never know exactly how the universe came to be, I don't think it's a question that can be answered. Therefore everything that everyone says in terms of theories...

answer to this question is because we want one. :smile-big

[Keramachi]

Science has not explained some things, and how does this support your argument of the existance of God? you have no evidence of God, your belief is not rational.You ask for evidence, yet I am sure that you'd dismiss it as soon as you heard it. If I ask you exactly how everything on earth formed so that there would be life, then you'd say "random fate." If I asked why so many people believe in God, you'd say "people are weak." Faith is a powerful thing. Believing that everything happened by chance is irrational, since there is no evidence to support that the world was formed by random fate, either.

However, do not think that I believe in "intelligent design." It is religious dogma, thinly disguised as scientific theory. The way I see it, how else could a system as perfect as evolution exist without God? God wanted life, so God gave it the ability to adapt and survive under changing conditions.

[maj1n]

You ask for evidence, yet I am sure that you'd dismiss it as soon as you heard it.

your sidestepping my request, im kindly asking you for evidence that God created life, why do you hesitate to provide it? unless you know its flawed.


If I ask you exactly how everything on earth formed so that there would be life, then you'd say "random fate."

My answer would be, i dont know.


If I asked why so many people believe in God, you'd say "people are weak."

I would say due to indoctrinization and the heavy influence of religion, not unlike why people believed that the Earth was once flat, or that diseases was caused by spirits, or that the earth revolving around the sun was false and heretical.


Faith is a powerful thing. Believing that everything happened by chance is irrational, since there is no evidence to support that the world was formed by random fate, either.

what is this 'random fate' you talk about? i certainly have never heard of random fate in any scientific circles.
I dont have any belief of the beginning of everything, we simply dont know.


The way I see it, how else could a system as perfect as evolution exist without God? God wanted life, so God gave it the ability to adapt and survive under changing conditions.
Actually you show true irrationality, here is your own statement.


Believing that everything happened by chance is irrational, since there is no evidence to support that the world was formed by random fate, either.

lets replace 'chance' and 'random fate' with god.

Believing that everything happened by GOD is irrational, since there is no evidence to support that the world was formed GOD, either.


seems youve got quite double-standards, you can attack 'random chance everything formed' to be irrational to be believed because there is no evidence, and yet you believe in God, which by definition has no evidence.

strange logic you use.

[Keramachi]

your sidestepping my request, im kindly asking you for evidence that God created life, why do you hesitate to provide it? unless you know its flawed.

what is this 'random fate' you talk about?

seems youve got quite double-standards, you can attack 'random chance everything formed' to be irrational to be believed because there is no evidence, and yet you believe in God, which by definition has no evidence.

strange logic you use.Science provides an explanation ast to how the earth formed, life evolves, etc, but no reasons as to why. (when I say "random fate" I refer to chaos theory) If I ask myself "why?" and look at it from a simply scientific stanpoint, I could only shrug my shoulders and say "that's just the way it is."
I would say due to indoctrinization and the heavy influence of religion, not unlike why people believed that the Earth was once flat, or that diseases was caused by spirits, or that the earth revolving around the sun was false and heretical.You misunderstand me. I meant to ask, "why did anyone believe in God in the first place?" That is a more difficult question to answer.
im kindly asking you for evidence that God created life, why do you hesitate to provide it?Why am I hesitant?
yet you believe in God, which by definition has no evidence.Because you already have your mind made up.

[maj1n]

Science provides an explanation ast to how the earth formed, life evolves, etc, but no reasons as to why. (when I say "random fate" I refer to chaos theory) If I ask myself "why?" and look at it from a simply scientific stanpoint, I could only shrug my shoulders and say "that's just the way it is."

And how does this help your argument?
You already assume everything was created for a purpose, when you have no evidence.


You misunderstand me. I meant to ask, "why did anyone believe in God in the first place?" That is a more difficult question to answer.

easy, through past beliefs.
Pagan gods were not the same as your gods, in fact the earliest gods were represantations of forces of nature, which explained THE forces of nature for them.
Explaining that which they cant explain.


Why am I hesitant?
Because you already have your mind made up.
You cant have evidence of a supernatural entity period.

All our evidence is based and shaped by natural laws, to say something can violate these laws is to say that there is absolutely no way you can verify this things existance with anything in the physical universe.

And you admit yourself you have no evidence.


Faith is a powerful thing.

it seems you dont quite understand your own beliefs.

And it is also strange for you to debate yet not debate, you are obligated to show flaws in my argument and to support your own in a debate.

Saying 'im not showing you cus you wont agree with me' is never a good thing in a debate, and is not something you do.

[Keramachi]

I have to ask, is my username really that hard to spell?
You cant have evidence of a supernatural entity period.This is what I meant. You asked for evidence of God, but you yourself say that there can be none. Therefore, nothing I say can convice you otherwise, and giving you my evidence is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
it seems you dont quite understand your own beliefs.Do you think that for a second that I refused to examine my faith? As an outsider, do you really think that you would know better than me about my own religion? It's quite presumptous, and arrogant of you to say something like that. I would not be a believer had I not chosen to. I dislike blind faith, I think it is one of the worse aspects of religion. However, there are some things which I simply accept. Faith IS a powerful thing. It enables people to believe that there is a higher power watching over us, that created the world. You said yourself that religion is irrational. Would it not take something powerful to make the irrational rational? I don't consider myself to be irrational in my faith, and I have in the past. That was a conflict I resolved within myself.

[maj1n]

I have to ask, is my username really that hard to spell?
This is what I meant. You asked for evidence of God, but you yourself say that there can be none. Therefore, nothing I say can convice you otherwise, and giving you my evidence is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

It is not me rejecting it out of stubbornness, but its logic.

ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is shaped by the laws of the universe, to say something can violate these laws is to say there is no physical evidence that can ever support that thing, because all physical evidence is dependant on natural laws.

Its like trying to prove something hot if you can only detect cold.

But i ask you again, if i am wrong then please show me i am wrong, your not helping your own argument from saying 'oh you probably wont agree so i wont show you this evidence'.


Do you think that for a second that I refused to examine my faith? As an outsider, do you really think that you would know better than me about my own religion? It's quite presumptous, and arrogant of you to say something like that. I would not be a believer had I not chosen to.

i was catholic and used to believe in God heavily, so it is presumptous of you to assume im presumptous since i dont understand your faith.
haha :P




I dislike blind faith, I think it is one of the worse aspects of religion. However, there are some things which I simply accept. Faith IS a powerful thing. It enables people to believe that there is a higher power watching over us, that created the world. You said yourself that religion is irrational. Would it not take something powerful to make the irrational rational?

lol, no heavy indoctrinisation and enforcement of a faith-belief does not suddenly make the irrational, rational.

That is like saying if i enforced my country to believe the earth was flat, it would make that irrational belief rational (and were assuming the data that contradicts this is readily available to all).


I don't consider myself to be irrational in my faith, and I have in the past. That was a conflict I resolved within myself.
then you must show your arguments that back up your 'rational belief'

[onewithchaos]

havent read ALL of the previous posts so excuse me if i repeat some of the same stuff

the way i see it, whether we believe in science or not it all boils down to the best theories we have. and so far the way i see it is that the big bang is the first one for the start of the universe. now i think i said this somewhere else but anyways. the big bang states that a ball of matter (star i think) exploded and created the known universe. now thats as far as we can go. but according to the accepted belief that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (mass= frozen energy. look up einstein for this). that means that the danm ball came out of nowhere. hence god. bam!! so he makes the ball with all elements and this cycle repeats for eternity, universe is created by explosion, stuff on explosion reaches limit and gets back to ball, repeat. :D

[opium4themasses]

Except the universe is accelerating away from itself.

[onewithchaos]

Except the universe is accelerating away from itself.
yea but if the unverse is a closed system the expansion will eventually reach a limit and it will eventually accelerate to the opposing direction of the velocity it had once it reached that limit. imgagine a wave in a pond, once it touches a wall it bounces. so when this happens, all the matter will go back to a ball of matter :D

[sadated_peon]

the way i see it, whether we believe in science or not it all boils down to the best theories we have. and so far the way i see it is that the big bang is the first one for the start of the universe. now i think i said this somewhere else but anyways. the big bang states that a ball of matter (star i think) exploded and created the known universe. now thats as far as we can go. but according to the accepted belief that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (mass= frozen energy. look up einstein for this). that means that the danm ball came out of nowhere. hence god. bam!! so he makes the ball with all elements and this cycle repeats for eternity, universe is created by explosion, stuff on explosion reaches limit and gets back to ball, repeat.
It existed in a singularity, which is more complex than just a ball of matter. Next matter can not be created or destroyed, which does not mean that it came out of no where but means that it always existed.

But if you want to say that it had to be created, then it leads to the problem of how god was created.
yea but if the unverse is a closed system the expansion will eventually reach a limit and it will eventually accelerate to the opposing direction of the velocity it had once it reached that limit. imgagine a wave in a pond, once it touches a wall it bounces. so when this happens, all the matter will go back to a ball of matter
there are no walls in space, the dark energy which is expanding the universe at an increasing rate will continue to do so, unless it properties are subject to forces yet unknown to us.

[Cthulhu-versailles]

It existed in a singularity, which is more complex than just a ball of matter. Next matter can not be created or destroyed, which does not mean that it came out of no where but means that it always existed.

But if you want to say that it had to be created, then it leads to the problem of how god was created.

there are no walls in space, the dark energy which is expanding the universe at an increasing rate will continue to do so, unless it properties are subject to forces yet unknown to us.

... How do you known the universe isn't a closed system- all you have is theory and not real proof. It's not like scientist can actually observe or identify the whole universe- it's to big to find any limit. Therefore is considered inifinte by are standards when in fact according to Humans all things have a begging or an end- unless tied into some lopping phase. How is the universe any diffrent.

You can't just say- NO the universe isn't closed- it continously grows! What if in fact the universe is closed in that it is infinite in terms of any relative pereception we can have of it.

any statment about the universe finite/ infinteness is just an educated guess/theory-not absolutle fact.This is also true on any debate regarding God. Theorist place there theories against each others and determine based on preconginitive bias this has a higher likelyhood of being ture then so and so. However, the reality is there is no actual reason why there is abrently at absolutle truth. Therefore it is merely belief- everyone and anyone is just making a statement-there is no reality in the statment except to those who perceive it to be true.

[maj1n]

... How do you known the universe isn't a closed system- all you have is theory and not real proof.

it seems youve misunderstood science, sigh.

NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE PROVEN.
That does not mean it is incorrect, but that it could be incorrect (until it is disproven by evidence which contradicts it).

Newtons theory of gravity, is not proven, do you believe in gravity? get back to us.


It's not like scientist can actually observe or identify the whole universe- it's to big to find any limit. Therefore is considered inifinte by are standards when in fact according to Humans all things have a begging or an end- unless tied into some lopping phase. How is the universe any diffrent.

what is is 'according to humans'? do you somehow now have a general consensus on what all humans believe? do Gods have a beginning and end? not to those who believe in one, therefore you are wrong.


any statment about the universe finite/ infinteness is just an educated guess/theory-not absolutle fact.This is also true on any debate regarding God. Theorist place there theories against each others and determine based on preconginitive bias this has a higher likelyhood of being ture then so and so. However, the reality is there is no actual reason why there is abrently at absolutle truth. Therefore it is merely belief- everyone and anyone is just making a statement-there is no reality in the statment except to those who perceive it to be true.
Scientific theories never states it has absolute truth, ever, if it did it would never test or experiment.

You seem to be saying that since scientific theories do not hold absolute truth, it has no real value.

Do you believe in gravity? does this theory hold value? it seems to ba applied successfully in thousands of technology, space rockets, satellites.
Everything.

So your statement basically has no real point to it, true there is no absolute truth, because we are always open to the possibility that what we know is wrong.

Consider this then, if one does not hold the position of absolute belief of something (they believe it to be 100% right with no chance of being wrong) then that means they are not subject to being absolutely wrong.

This is the danger for assuming something is absolutely true, you may be absolutely wrong.

[footprints007]

Ok ever body here is say it's a theory or where trying to prove or have proven this goes for both sides Ie god and evoltioan. The sinitifc comuity has desiced that we can no longer prove anything... only falseify it. stateing that something is false till other wise said so. kinda like the theor of grivty people say that that is a proven theory but if you use Ensites theory of relitvity then gravity is no longer an apsolute, just relivent to your speed and so on.

next in regards to the big bang there are several differnt theorys about this one if you don't belive anything I am about to say go and by the boo by stevan halwkings "the theory of everthing"

first there is the hot bang: this modle is one of the better moldes to explain why we have radio active waves (nose) in the back gorund of space. Also this theory leaves room for a God. Steave Hawkings says this to. pg 107

The inflationary Model: a quck summary explains why the unezire has so much matter but so liitle energy to be exate the univers has 0 enger. and it gets more technical
This theory was eventula replaced with several differnt ones and is not used to offten

and so on

any way my point being no matter how long we look at this no matter who looks at it. we can't prove anything because we could be wrong and the univers is just to big for our little minds.

on a side note did you guys now that black holes are not black the give off light. cool hun

[Keramachi]

on a side note did you guys now that black holes are not black the give off light. cool hunOnly when they consume matter. The effect is known as an accretion disk.

[kagekaibutsu]

I believe that god does exist. God controls nature, but not the human mind. God created all that is and all that will be. In the end of time God will bring the dead to life and be known to umanity. Until then we are all just people and mean nothing.

[SuperStylin]

I like St. Anselm's argument....

The Ontological Argument

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:(5) God exists.

there is also a perfection argument but i forgot that one...

[sadated_peon]

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
incorrect greater is a relative term, that has no absolute meaning.
Greater is subjective, and as a god can not be subjective this definition is flawed.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Well actually this is incomplete there is also supposed to be the assumption that god can be imagined. But this is wrong, god can not be imagined.

You picked a crappy explanation of the ontological argument. It misses out two important steps.

[opium4themasses]

The Super Sweet Bike Argument

(1) The Super Sweet Bike is that bike which no greater bike can be conceived.
(2) If The Super Sweet Bike is that bike which no greater bike can be conceived then there is no bike greater than The Super Sweet Bike that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is no greater bike than The Super Sweet Bike that can be imagined.
(4) If The Super Sweet Bike does not exist then there is some bike greater than The Super Sweet Bike that can be imagined.
Therefore 5) The Super Sweet Bike exists

[coolpuprocks]

*grabs notebook and pen and prepares to shift through 11 pages, but I shall try responding to all civily as possible ^_^;;*

However, in terms of the origins/original names of people/events…I will let http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html speak for itself as already mentioned.

And propz to Sanyo and tootaa18. I totally agree.


It seems many people start out believing in God, but when they encounter something in their religion which they can't explain, they turn their back on it.
That is the sad truth sometimes. I will try to change that and clarify all the shady areas of religion.

so, in conclusion, i believe in a mix of evolutionism and catholosism. that we may be here today, but not because of god, but becasue are own species evolution.
fior him, one day could be like a 5.453 million years or something.
Without a sun to produce light and without the earth having form to revolve around the sun, it could very well be possible for a "God day", in particular the first day, to last millions of years.
As for the 6 days thing and what not. Maybe the bible was created in 6 days. Maybe it was created in million of years.
The word “day” (Hebrew yom can have a variety of meanings. A solar day, daylight, and indefinite period of time. This word occurs 2,291 times in the Old Testament, and it almost always means a literal day. When used in the plural form yamim (845 times) it always refers to a literal day. When modified by numeral or ordinal in historical narratives (359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1) it always means a literal day. When modified by “evening and/or morning” (38 times outside of Genesis 1) it always mean a literal day. The Context of Genesis 1 is a tight chronology. Thusly, IN GENESIS 1 Proper interpretation is a solar day, not an indefinite period of time.

THe Bible is wrong because it SPECIFICALLY says 6 days. I don't know why you guys try to manipulate that fact. It never said 6 "God days," it said 6 DAYS. Do you go around making up your own calendars and clocks or something?
No, the Bible is not wrong. God did create the world in 6 literal days. That just proves how powerful He really is. If you would like to debate about how this doesn’t fit with evolution standards/radioactive decay/ect. than I’ll be more than happy to debate with you about that later.


If there is a God he doesn't want us to know about him or else he'd alert us to his presense with an undisputable sign.
Matthew 12:38-39 “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
That’s a very bad accusation. What kind of sign do you want? There was Jesus. He died, and resurrected in 3 days. For a man who can overcome death, WHO HUNDREDS SAW AFTER HIS RESURRECTION that’s not an undisputable sign?? That’s not good enough for you?

To say that there is definately one God with certain characteristics and motives is hardly based on anything factual.
Either we are all highly ignorant or there is SOMETHING holding our faith together. Would you like me to cross reference Bible points with History—proven history? I can discuss the dream Daniel again I wrote.[though I doubt people want me to talk about the same thing twice]
Or would you like me to search over the internet for some other type of enlightenment?

but i still believe in god however i think there is way too much scientific evidance on evolution and all that.
IMO, god doesn't exist. scientifically, there isn't any way that he can exist and there not be any proof. i rather like the theory of evolution b/c it has been proven to be possible by studying other organisms on the earth.
No. Science is based on the scientific method. Right?
Hypothesis => observations => collect data => analysis => conclusion => perform experiment over.
You cannot perform the experiment again. It is not able to be proven. It is merely a THEORY. Evolution is not a science in itself. It is more of a faith.
“Man will go to great lengths to avoid worshiping his Creator-God. He will even bow down before “Mother Earth” and “Father Time”


In fact, if science did venture into the realm of explaining life and its meaning--my bets on there not being one, but stick with me--it's likely that the result would be circular and meaningless
You are correct. Science tried to explain how old the earth was. It was a circular meaningless explanation called evolution. For example, when they tried classifying ages of rocks and fossils it pretty much went something like this:
Date of rock => determines => date of fossil.
Date of fossil => determines => date of rock.

I mean: if you follow back a chain of causality and find God at the beginning, then what came before God? Leviathan? A snow-cow? Gaia?
You will not like my explanation, but God is forever present, past, and future. He was always around. On the contrary, I can shoot this question right back at all you atheists. Where did the earth come from? Where did the particles for the Big-bang theory come from? Where did that force magically come from?

Without wasting so many words, what I want to say is this: even if God is out there, why would he care about us?
You again will not like my explanation. He is out there. He does care for us. He sent his one and only Son to die for us. Ever seen the Passion of the Christ? Gory wasn’t it? Making your Son suffer through torments and troubles like that? Would you do that for a total stranger? No. You wouldn’t. Would you do that for a close friend? A relative? Frankly, I don’t love anybody enough to undergo that kind of torment. Yet, Jesus did. Doesn’t that show some kind of love towards us? I believe he does care.

but why does god excists then?
well as an icon for hopegod/s got created out of hope for mostly resembling things that men couldn't explain, for example certain wheather effects.
Created out of hope? Hardly. That sounds like God is a figment of my imagination and I choose randomly to worship and devote my time to some statue. That sounds like God is my “hey—I need this, please help me” kind of guy. No. God is not merely a helper. He is also a friend.

I'm gonna answer that by saying this, the Gods of all the World's main religions don't exist, or rather, don't exist in the capacity they are believed to. Yahweh (the God of the Old Testament) was the Hittite God Adad and the source of many religious Gods including the Zeus of the Greeks. Buddha, Krishnu, and Jesus all come from ancient Egyptian myths stemming from the sun God Amon-Ra (Jesus in particular came from the story of Horus, their lives are almost identical right down to the smallest details). Whether or not Adad is actually alive (long explanation) is subject to interpretation
Now that’s a first. I heard that Jews/Muslims/Christians all shared the same God, just called them different names, but I haven’t heard of this ancient Egyptian stuff. Interesting indeed. Honestly, I don’t believe it, but I will have to get back to you on that though and ask about my church.

if i am wrong then please show me i am wrong, your not helping your own argument from saying 'oh you probably wont agree so i wont show you this evidence'.
Keramachi is right. You will not believe the evidence no matter how hard I tried to conince you. For example, let's talk about evolution vs. creationism. Both of these faiths were developed from looking at the same data. Right? The root of all our logic comes from this:
Assumption => data => interpretation.
****
To better understand evolution vs. creationism, I will give you another example. Let’s be CSI agents. We see a dead woman on the floor. There are pills, a tie, and a knife on the floor. Now, tell me how did that woman die?

If I told you the woman was really old, you can probably come up with an explanation that the pills were for medical reasons. She was working in the kitchen preparing food since her husband. (thus explaining the tie and the knife) has left for work. She died from a heart attack.

If I told you the woman was really young, you can come up with the explanation that she drugged by the pills. Then she was a raped by an attacker (the tie) who had a knife.
****
See? Two totally logical explanations looking from the same type of data. That’s how evolution and creationism is. Each made an assumption (evolutionist believes the earth is old and creationists believe the earth is young) and then derived a perfect illustration of their ideas. Keramachi is right in saying you would not believe him simply because you two have different assumptions to begin with.

[coolpuprocks]

FORGIVE THIS DOUBLE POST BUT I HAD MORE THAN 10,000 CHARACTERS TO SAY MY OPINIONS


Maybe we should tell all the starving people in Africa to pray? Maybe we should tell all the people getting shot up daily to pray? Or maybe praying could have stopped 9/11 or the tsunami? You must be kidding or living in a fantasy world to think praying does anything useful.
Finally, now I can talk about this from personal experience. I go to church. We bought a new church for 9 million dollars. We have a sister church who bought a new church in the heart of Chinatown, NY (Grand street! And if you know new york, you know that’s a prime location and it’s EXPENSIVE) for about 6 million dollars. Total amount of congregation I would guess to be about 400 members. That’s a shit load of money, right? How do we get the money? Seriously, we pray about it. My church alone has to pay $27,000 monthly to the bank, or else we lose the church. God listens, God provides. We have gotten checks from our other sister churches all over the world.

In fact, just a few days ago my reverend asked all of our parents to kneel and pray to the Lord. During the prayer, one man felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to write a $5,000 check to the Lord. So he did. Separately, his wife felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to write a check also. She did and wrote a $3,000 check. That family donated $8,000 (unknowingly of the other person’s donation). God works in his own way. He does provide.

Out planet has been bombarded by meteorites in the past. How else do you think the dinosaurs got wiped out?
Religiously speaking? The dinosaurs along with every other animal went on board Noah’s ark. Now, you may be thinking “WTF dinosaurs are 30ft beasts that won’t fit.” Ok. But what’s preventing baby dinosaurs from boarding than? Yes, I believe animals came in pairs of 2 on the ark. And I believe they came as babies. Barely big enough to walk, but not too big to overcrowd the Ark. Ok, so now the flood cames. We have our 40 days, and 40 nights. Then 40 more days where the oceans water receaded. Then all animals are let out. I believe the dinosaurs that came off the ark could not adjust to the different climate change resulted from the Flood. Thus, there are no more dinosaurs left.

What is the purpose of your life in this world?
To worship your Creator, wait for Jesus’s return, and gain treasures in Heaven. This is the only thing you can take with you when you die.

Are people serving God just so they can get into heaven if there is a place or are they serving God becuase they love him?
To get into heaven, you just need to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior. That’s it. No strings attached. That’s your ticket to get into heaven. You can be a homicidal manic that killed billons of people, believe in Jesus the moment before your execution, die, and still go to heaven. (notice how he didn’t serve God once).
We serve God because as written in 1 John 4:19, “We love because He first loved us.”

THe Christian God is a loner
The stereotypical viewpoint of God is that he is just an old guy up on some high throne doing absolutely nothing for us. WRONG!! Ever read the poem “Footprints”? I believe God is always with me. He is not a loner and I am never alone. God is my friend.

The New Testament is similar, but there's the distinct possibility of it being a giant fable, since Jesus is never mentioned outside of the Bible in any ancient texts by the two most well-respected scholars at that time, Josephus and Phylo (though it's been surmised that Phylo mentions Jesus, but the portion found menitioning Jesus was found to have been created in the 1300s by hoaxers). "The Rapture" actually isn't in the Bible, the theory was created in the Revelations wasn't a prediction, but actually a series of letters written in the "Apocalyptic" style of writing (hence the term "Apocolypse"). St. John was trying to give the worshipers in Rome hope through a code that Romans weren't able to decipher, as the Romans were persecuting Christians all throughout their empire. As far as "Adam and Eve" go, that isn't how the story (and yes, it IS a story) goes. "God" didn't kill people. The God of the Old Testament goes by three main names, these being "Elohim", "El-Shaddai", and "Yaweh". "Elohim" in it's properly translated form means "Lofty Ones", in it's unaltered semitic form it means "Gods" ("El" is the singular of God), and the intentionaly mistranslated form is "God". Next comes "El-Shaddai", literally meaning "Great Vindicator", this same name is what the Sumerian god Enlil was also known by. Finally you have "Yaweh", now on the mount Moses spoke to a burning bush, a burning bush was one of the original symbols Enki was known by. Now when Moses came down from the Mount, he saw that the people were worshipping a golden bull/calf and he became furious. The reason behind this is that Enlil's symbol was that of a gold bull/calf (actually a symbol stolen from Enki then later stolen by Adad). He was angry because the people were falling back into their old forms of worship. I should note that in the times chronicled by the Bible, monotheism didn't exist. The Hebrews also had their own Pantheon (heiarchy of the Gods). It should be noted that the first commandment of the ten commandments states that "You shall have no other god before me" This statement clearly implies you can worship whatever the hell you want as long as you don't create idols and keep Yaweh as your first God. I should also point out that the name of Yaweh didn't exist before the cannonizing of the Bible and was almost definitely created by the Biblical patriarchs who put the Bible together.
oh crap. Not sure where to begin with this one. Jesus is mentioned by outside sources as a living person. (obviously they won’t credit him as a savior, but they have credited him as a great priest. Similar to how people will credit Buddha to actually being alive but not necessarily a great savior.)
The God of the Old Testament? He goes by this one name “I AM” He is the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob. The term “I AM” has only been used by two people- Jesus and God. Say it anywhere else, and people will call you blasphemous.
I will argue about the Ten Commandments though. “You shall have no other God before me” This statement clearly implies don’t have any other gods before me. He isn’t saying I must be your first, you can have a second minor god below me. How in the world did you get “you can worship whatever the hell you want?” You can only worship one God. ONE! That means—don’t run off bowing to another god. Don’t go giving sacrifices to another pagan. “I AM THE ONLY ONE!” is what He is implying!
And about the Rapture. What do you mean by “it is not a prediction”? I beg you, look deeper! Why else would he talk about dreams? The beast? The horns? The trumpets? The seals? They all refer to the rapture! And the rapture is mentioned in other places of the Bible (example: the book of Daniel and Ezekiel)

My main problem is reliance on a god and that creates weakness in my mind. Humans can become better and stronger if they stop relying on a god and take all responsibilty on themselves.
Humans are pitful creatures. Become stronger? No. You are born with sin. You don’t teach a baby how to misbehave—they just do! They know it’s wrong, but they still do it. It’s impossible for humans to become stronger and defeat the sin within us WITHOUT JESUS.

But it doesn't matter either way... the Golden Calf and Moses' God were still just two other ancient gods from Sumeria. Plus, there's very little historical evidence to support the trials and tribulations of the Jews, especially since there's no evidence whatsoever in Egypt that there was ever a large slave population.
EH? Are you saying the Egyptians built their massive famous pieces of pyramids all by their lonesome selves? I beg to differ.

In believing a religion, such as christianity, a person is giving up many of his or her freedoms. Only through darkness are you truly free.
This is a general misconception. Let me illustrate this to you with a story. There was a murder. His arms were stained with blood. Let me ask you this, who can wash away the blood? Who can get rid of his sin?
Only through Jesus that blood can be cleared. Only through him are you free from the burden of sin. Darkness will not help you.


It was the policy of the Church to destroy all material that they considered to be heretical or pagan.
No, there is a verse in the Bible forbidding people to change it or else they would be punished more harshly than the Egyptians were.


paul is the least credible, he never met Jesus, his confirmation of text already written doesn’t lead to a first hand source of comparison
After doing a brief study of the life of Paul recently, all I can think is GAH!! Okay, to start, Paul is extremely credible. Know what he did before he followed Christ? He persecuted the living daylights out of Christians. Murdered and abused them. He went to the extent that people feared him.

Then miraculously he changes into a loving Christian? To the extent that his death he was crucified UPSIDE DOWN? Talk about extreme changes.

By the way, Paul had a meeting with Peter and the other disciples. At the conclusion of this meeting, Paul was told by Peter to go preach in peace. In other words, Paul was given equal recognition status as Peter was.

[sadated_peon]

However, in terms of the origins/original names of people/events…I will let http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html speak for itself as already mentioned.
didn’t I already address that website….
No, the Bible is not wrong. God did create the world in 6 literal days. That just proves how powerful He really is. If you would like to debate about how this doesn’t fit with evolution standards/radioactive decay/ect. than I’ll be more than happy to debate with you about that later.
I would like to argue this, but I suggest you go to the “creationism” thread in the debates section for my arguments. (and so its not off topic)
Matthew 12:38-39 “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
That’s a very bad accusation. What kind of sign do you want? There was Jesus. He died, and resurrected in 3 days. For a man who can overcome death, WHO HUNDREDS SAW AFTER HIS RESURRECTION that’s not an undisputable sign?? That’s not good enough for you?
I find this excuse to be humorous, take a logical look at it if for a minute, if you were trying to perpetrate a fraud, trying to establish a god that doesn’t exits, what would you say to someone who wanted evidence. You would say, to ask for one evil or god doesn’t do things on command.
Just as hundreds of people saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear.
Either we are all highly ignorant or there is SOMETHING holding our faith together. Would you like me to cross reference Bible points with History—proven history? I can discuss the dream Daniel again I wrote.[though I doubt people want me to talk about the same thing twice]
Or would you like me to search over the internet for some other type of enlightenment?
Well, first it is not ignorant to say that people don’t know the motives of god, as they are unknown. The term “god works in mysterious ways” comes to mind, I think you insults are baseless. But if you have a nice detail explanation of gods plan, I would love to hear it.
But I would like the thank that you realize that the bible isn’t proven history. But let me assure you, the bible contradicts proven history quite consistently until around the time of the Babylonian captivity.
No. Science is based on the scientific method. Right?
Hypothesis => observations => collect data => analysis => conclusion => perform experiment over.
You cannot perform the experiment again. It is not able to be proven. It is merely a THEORY. Evolution is not a science in itself. It is more of a faith.
“Man will go to great lengths to avoid worshiping his Creator-God. He will even bow down before “Mother Earth” and “Father Time”

Nazareth, I like what you’re thinking.
No, you don’t understand how science works. For example it is a theory that the sun is a fusion reaction between hydrogen atoms. This is of course a theory that is substantiated with observations about the sun. But that does not mean that you need to create another sun for it to be science.
We experiment on other species and show that they evolve, and then we compare that to what is already known about our species. As we experiment on other hydrogen atoms and show their fusion and compare that to our sun.
Evolution is a science, to argue otherwise only demonstrates you lack of understanding in science.
You are correct. Science tried to explain how old the earth was. It was a circular meaningless explanation called evolution. For example, when they tried classifying ages of rocks and fossils it pretty much went something like this:
Date of rock => determines => date of fossil.
Date of fossil => determines => date of rock.
No, this is a incorrect assessment of the many different dating methods that are used. The age of fossils already established is never the sole reason for dating rocks.
You will not like my explanation, but God is forever present, past, and future. He was always around. On the contrary, I can shoot this question right back at all you atheists. Where did the earth come from? Where did the particles for the Big-bang theory come from? Where did that force magically come from?
like you attribute to your god, they have always exited.
You again will not like my explanation. He is out there. He does care for us. He sent his one and only Son to die for us. Ever seen the Passion of the Christ? Gory wasn’t it? Making your Son suffer through torments and troubles like that? Would you do that for a total stranger? No. You wouldn’t. Would you do that for a close friend? A relative? Frankly, I don’t love anybody enough to undergo that kind of torment. Yet, Jesus did. Doesn’t that show some kind of love towards us? I believe he does care.
He was speaking from the concept of an all powerful god, and was not accepting the Christian interpretation of an personal god. If he was unwilling to accept the Christian interpretation quoting the Christian interpretation doesn’t do much.
Created out of hope? Hardly. That sounds like God is a figment of my imagination and I choose randomly to worship and devote my time to some statue. That sounds like God is my “hey—I need this, please help me” kind of guy. No. God is not merely a helper. He is also a friend.
It sounds like it, because that what it is.
Finally, now I can talk about this from personal experience. I go to church. We bought a new church for 9 million dollars. We have a sister church who bought a new church in the heart of Chinatown, NY (Grand street! And if you know new york, you know that’s a prime location and it’s EXPENSIVE) for about 6 million dollars. Total amount of congregation I would guess to be about 400 members. That’s a shit load of money, right? How do we get the money? Seriously, we pray about it. My church alone has to pay $27,000 monthly to the bank, or else we lose the church. God listens, God provides. We have gotten checks from our other sister churches all over the world.

In fact, just a few days ago my reverend asked all of our parents to kneel and pray to the Lord. During the prayer, one man felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to write a $5,000 check to the Lord. So he did. Separately, his wife felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to write a check also. She did. That family donated $8,000 (unknowingly of the other person’s donation). God works in his own way. He does provide.
This I find naïve to the point of dangerous, and a little insulting thrown in. You were given money by two people of a family who donated 8,000 dollars to your church. A great gift, a very generous gift, but what gets me is that you don’t celebrate this as the accomplishment of these people desire and generosity, but as the result of god. There is no miracle behind a man working hard his life to earn money; there is no miracle behind a man’s generosity toward another. This is not a testament to the power of god, but to the power of man. Celebrate that family’s willingness to give the church money, as it was them who did it. Don’t belittle this huge contribution by saying it was the result of god. You should be thanking the family, not god.
Religiously speaking? The dinosaurs along with every other animal went on board Noah’s ark. Now, you may be thinking “WTF dinosaurs are 30ft beasts that won’t fit.” Ok. But what’s preventing baby dinosaurs from boarding than? Yes, I believe animals came in pairs of 2 on the ark. And I believe they came as babies. Barely big enough to walk, but not too big to overcrowd the Ark. Ok, so now the flood cames. We have our 40 days, and 40 nights. Then 40 more days where the oceans water receaded. Then all animals are let out. I believe the dinosaurs that came off the ark could not adjust to the different climate change resulted from the Flood. Thus, there are no more dinosaurs left.
Well close but not quite.
40 day and 40 nights it rained.
40
genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
40+150 = 190
and
40 days to recede
190+40 = 230

Now even as babies after 230 day most animals are at least half their final size (because they use it as a defense mechanism.) Next of course is feeding animals for 230 days.

So basically it is impossible, but go to the “creationism” thread to argue this more, my arguments are there. There is also the counter evidence to a flood, but well, just go to the thread.
To get into heaven, you just need to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior. That’s it. No strings attached. That’s your ticket to get into heaven. You can be a homicidal manic that killed billons of people, believe in Jesus the moment before your execution, die, and still go to heaven. (notice how he didn’t serve God once).
We serve God because
Now, why do I serve God? 1 John 4:19 “We love because He first loved us.”
That’s right folks, Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in hell. Welcome to the fair and just world that is Christianity.

[sadated_peon]

And about the Rapture. What do you mean by “it is not a prediction”? I beg you, look deeper! Why else would he talk about dreams? The beast? The horns? The trumpets? The seals? They all refer to the rapture! And the rapture is mentioned in other places of the Bible (example: the book of Daniel and Ezekiel)
It is a metaphor for the roman empire, the number of the devil 666 refers to emperor nero.
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/nero666.htm

It was code to talk about the romans behind their backs, because of aggression was met with death.
Humans are pitful creatures. Become stronger? No. You are born with sin. You don’t teach a baby how to misbehave—they just do! They know it’s wrong, but they still do it. It’s impossible for humans to become stronger and defeat the sin within us WITHOUT JESUS.
The greatest advancements in human history have been done in spite the resistance of the church. The science that shapes the advancements of this world, and shapes the future, has no reliance on god.
EH? Are you saying the Egyptians built their massive famous pieces of pyramids all by their lonesome selves? I beg to differ.
then you would be wrong, the Egyptians built the pyramids themselves. They general citizenry was drafted by the pharaoh to build his temple. It was not done by slaves but by the Egyptians themselves.
This is a general misconception. Let me illustrate this to you with a story. There was a murder. His arms were stained with blood. Let me ask you this, who can wash away the blood? Who can get rid of his sin?
Only through Jesus that blood can be cleared. Only through him are you free from the burden of sin. Darkness will not help you.
No, only he may do it through helping others can he remove his guilt. But sin only exists in the minds who hold such actions sinful.
No, there is a verse in the Bible forbidding people to change it or else they would be punished more harshly than the Egyptians were.
yes, the church did destroy all material that they felt to be heretical or pagan.
fter doing a brief study of the life of Paul recently, all I can think is GAH!! Okay, to start, Paul is extremely credible. Know what he did before he followed Christ? He persecuted the living daylights out of Christians. Murdered and abused them. He went to the extent that people feared him.

Then miraculously he changes into a loving Christian? To the extent that his death he was crucified UPSIDE DOWN? Talk about extreme changes.

By the way, Paul had a meeting with Peter and the other disciples. At the conclusion of this meeting, Paul was told by Peter to go preach in peace. In other words, Paul was given equal recognition status as Peter was.
Paul never met jesus, therefore it is impossible for him to give a first hand account of jesus or the event of jesus’s life because he was not there. Paul is not a credible source on Jesus because he never met the guy.

[coolpuprocks]

I find this excuse to be humorous, take a logical look at it if for a minute, if you were trying to perpetrate a fraud, trying to establish a god that doesn’t exits, what would you say to someone who wanted evidence. You would say, to ask for one evil or god doesn’t do things on command.
Just as hundreds of people saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear.
not too sure what you were trying to say in the bold letters.
*sigh.* Anyway, you obviously misinterpreted the Bible reference I said. The Bible reference I was referring to was talking about people like you. You asked for a sign, even though many have been performed already. The dead live. The sick are healed. The blind can see. And even despite all these signs, you still ask for more! Jesus answered he would give only one more sign, which is Jonah and the whale. Jonah and the whale is a cross reference to Jesus’s own resurrection. Just like how Jonah spent 3 days in the whale, so will Jesus be spend 3 days in hell. Jesus’s resurrection is the ultimate proof that He is Christ.

You also cannot compare a magic trick to something like this. Magic Tricks are illusions and you can prove them wrong. This was not.

Well, first it is not ignorant to say that people don’t know the motives of god, as they are unknown. The term “god works in mysterious ways” comes to mind, I think you insults are baseless. But if you have a nice detail explanation of gods plan, I would love to hear it.
You want to learn God’s motives? Read His Word and the Bible. Then you shall see.

But I would like the thank that you realize that the bible isn’t proven history. But let me assure you, the bible contradicts proven history quite consistently until around the time of the Babylonian captivity.
Eh? I never said the Bible isn’t proven history. Actually, I believe a lot that the Bible is fact.

No, you don’t understand how science works. For example it is a theory that the sun is a fusion reaction between hydrogen atoms. This is of course a theory that is substantiated with observations about the sun. But that does not mean that you need to create another sun for it to be science.
We experiment on other species and show that they evolve, and then we compare that to what is already known about our species. As we experiment on other hydrogen atoms and show their fusion and compare that to our sun.

We have never fully evolved animals into new species. We have played with them on the genetic level (such as putting inserts into plasmids and creating new vectors) but we have never created a whole new separate type of species.

I understand science perfectly. read on to why I do think you are the one confused.

like you attribute to your god, they have always exited.
So, you have faith that that they always existed? Faith is attributed to religion, you know.

Evolution is a science, to argue otherwise only demonstrates you lack of understanding in science.
But didn’t you just mention you had faith that they these subatomic particles and the exact chemical reaction already existed enough to create the Big-Bang theory?

I prefer to call both evolution and creationism as faiths because they both rely on a faith that something existed in the beginning. Creationists believe God existed in the beginning. Evolutionist believes that subatomic particles and the exact chemical reaction just HAPPENED to work at the exact time and conditions enough to create the Big-Bang theory. And to make life more improbable, they say the EXACT mutation just HAPPENED to work and shape millions of animals.

Which sounds more far-fetched to you?

If you start calling evolution a science, than you HAVE to call creationism a science as well. Define your definition about what makes a science, and you will notice that creationism will meet the same criteria.

The greatest advancements in human history have been done in spite the resistance of the church. The science that shapes the advancements of this world, and shapes the future, has no reliance on god.
You rely on your faith of these pretty subatomic particles whether you subconsciously realize it or not.

No, this is a incorrect assessment of the many different dating methods that are used. The age of fossils already established is never the sole reason for dating rocks.
Majority of the time, it is. First, let me tell you to go to the library, pick up the book called “The Young Earth” by John D. Morris and turn to page 13-15. I do not feel like typing out the entire passages.


He was speaking from the concept of an all powerful god, and was not accepting the Christian interpretation of an personal god. If he was unwilling to accept the Christian interpretation quoting the Christian interpretation doesn’t do much.
That’s why I said he would not like my answer.

[coolpuprocks]

It sounds like it, because that what it is.
God is not your “piggy bank” that you go to and ask for ___, ____, and ____. He is your friend. Your Mentor. Your Father. Your Creator. It is sad how the other amazing attributes of God is so easily (or purposely) forgotten.

This I find naïve to the point of dangerous, and a little insulting thrown in. You were given money by two people of a family who donated 8,000 dollars to your church. A great gift, a very generous gift, but what gets me is that you don’t celebrate this as the accomplishment of these people desire and generosity, but as the result of god. There is no miracle behind a man working hard his life to earn money; there is no miracle behind a man’s generosity toward another. This is not a testament to the power of god, but to the power of man. Celebrate that family’s willingness to give the church money, as it was them who did it. Don’t belittle this huge contribution by saying it was the result of god. You should be thanking the family, not god.
Thank God for the Holy Spirit compelled the family to donate to the church. Let me tell you this. If you—man alone—without the help of God can raise $27,000 per month, than fine. Let me see you do it. Oh, and let me remind you that the only thing you’re allowed to do is preach to your congregation. Since that’s all my Reverend ever did.


Well close but not quite.
40 day and 40 nights it rained.
40
genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
40+150 = 190
and
40 days to recede
190+40 = 230

Now even as babies after 230 day most animals are at least half their final size (because they use it as a defense mechanism.) Next of course is feeding animals for 230 days.

So basically it is impossible, but go to the “creationism” thread to argue this more, my arguments are there. There is also the counter evidence to a flood, but well, just go to the thread.
I was too lazy to double check how many days it took for the waters to recede, so I will thank you on that correction. As for the other data, I will continue arguing later in the other thread.


That’s right folks, Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in hell. Welcome to the fair and just world that is Christianity.
Was that sarcasm sincerely needed? Believe in Jesus, and you are saved. At least murders who turned to Christianity were humble enough to admit that they’re not as powerful as they want to believe.

It is a metaphor for the roman empire, the number of the devil 666 refers to emperor nero.
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/nero666.htm It was code to talk about the romans behind their backs, because of aggression was met with death.
Sorry, that’s really far-fetched. That, hey if you add these letters together and this code you will get 666. Oh man, I have seen that done to so many various types of people. Here’s an example:
Pope John Paul III in Latin his name means “filii vicarivis dei”
Okay, now let’s use roman numerals to add his name.
F= 0, I= 1 ,L = 50, I = 1, I = 1
V=5, I=1, C=100, A=0, R=0, I= 1, V=5, I = 0, S = 0
D = 500, E = 0, I = 1
Add those numbers together. OH NO!! IT EQUALS 666!! AHH!! WHAT TO DO, WHAT TO DO?!


then you would be wrong, the Egyptians built the pyramids themselves. They general citizenry was drafted by the pharaoh to build his temple. It was not done by slaves but by the Egyptians themselves.
I would like to see your source for this. No slaves in Egypt? Ever? Well, they must have had a HUGE population to perform all those architectural structures. I don’t see any records of that.

No, only he may do it through helping others can he remove his guilt. But sin only exists in the minds who hold such actions sinful.
You’re thinking “as long as the good works over balances the bad works, you can go to heaven.” How would giving charity to the poor erase the fact that you killed somebody? Newsflash. God is perfect in every way. He does not allow one sin to enter his Kingdom. What’s the difference between a small sin (like lying) compared to a big sin (like mass murder) in his eyes? Nothing. They are still sin, they are still disgraceful, and you can’t get rid of it alone without Jesus’s help.

yes, the church did destroy all material that they felt to be heretical or pagan.
I fear that the Da Vinci Code is your source. Mind telling me where you’re getting this info?

Paul never met jesus, therefore it is impossible for him to give a first hand account of jesus or the event of jesus’s life because he was not there. Paul is not a credible source on Jesus because he never met the guy.
Let me tell you about Paul. Paul was a Roman citizen. You know what it means to be a Roman Citizen? It means you were protected by the government—a privilege many did not have and would pay big bucks to get. Paul was a Pharisees and VERY Jewish. He was a strong persecutor of the Christian faith because he did not think they were following God’s laws.

Yet, on the road to Damascus, Paul met Jesus through a vision and his life changed. He went from a life or privilege and luxury to a life of suffering. And he LOVED doing it too. He was truly transformed and believed ever so firmly in the life of Jesus.
I also would like to point out that Paul met Jesus in a vision and he is qualified to be considered an apostle. In Galations 2:19 “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.” This shows that Peter, James, and John---the BIG GUYS in the Christian church—agreed that Paul’s doctrine was indeed correct. They recognized that Paul was equal spiritually and deserved recognition status as an apostle.

[opium4themasses]

Too long, didn't read. Could you guys try parsing your arguments down a bit, or maybe not quoting each other's entire passage.

[sadated_peon]

not too sure what you were trying to say in the bold letters.
*sigh.* Anyway, you obviously misinterpreted the Bible reference I said. The Bible reference I was referring to was talking about people like you. You asked for a sign, even though many have been performed already. The dead live. The sick are healed. The blind can see. And even despite all these signs, you still ask for more! Jesus answered he would give only one more sign, which is Jonah and the whale. Jonah and the whale is a cross reference to Jesus’s own resurrection. Just like how Jonah spent 3 days in the whale, so will Jesus be spend 3 days in hell. Jesus’s resurrection is the ultimate proof that He is Christ.

You also cannot compare a magic trick to something like this. Magic Tricks are illusions and you can prove them wrong. This was not.
He have no evidence of anything that Jesus has done, just the fictitious tales of someone with his name.
These things are exactly like magic tricks, just done 2000 years ago. They all can be proven wrong.
You want to learn God’s motives? Read His Word and the Bible. Then you shall see.
I have read the bible, cover to cover, and no where is there an explanation of god's mind. There is no one that knows god’s mind, and no where is it explained. That is why the phrase exists, because no one know the ways that god works, not then, and not now.
Eh? I never said the Bible isn’t proven history. Actually, I believe a lot that the Bible is fact.
you said.
“Would you like me to cross reference Bible points with History—proven history?”
You separated the bible from proven history, but if you want reverse it fine. The bible is not proven history, in fact it contradicts history. The flood for example is completely and totally false.
We have never fully evolved animals into new species. We have played with them on the genetic level (such as putting inserts into plasmids and creating new vectors) but we have never created a whole new separate type of species.

I understand science perfectly. read on to why I do think you are the one confused.
Actually we have, we have done it with bacteria, we have allowed bacteria to evolve in laboratories into new species, through mutation.

If you understood science that you would know that evolution is a scientific theory, to say otherwise mean you don’t understand science.
So, you have faith that that they always existed? Faith is attributed to religion, you know.
No, I have evidence, by the fact that matter can not be created or destroyed. As that is true what exists now must have always existed.
But didn’t you just mention you had faith that they these subatomic particles and the exact chemical reaction already existed enough to create the Big-Bang theory?

I prefer to call both evolution and creationism as faiths because they both rely on a faith that something existed in the beginning. Creationists believe God existed in the beginning. Evolutionist believes that subatomic particles and the exact chemical reaction just HAPPENED to work at the exact time and conditions enough to create the Big-Bang theory. And to make life more improbable, they say the EXACT mutation just HAPPENED to work and shape millions of animals.

Which sounds more far-fetched to you?

If you start calling evolution a science, than you HAVE to call creationism a science as well. Define your definition about what makes a science, and you will notice that creationism will meet the same criteria.
No, I don’t have faith, I have evidence. These theories are built off evidence, and exist only as long as evidence agrees with them. There are not taken on faith.

First evolution has nothing to do with subatomic particles that existed at the time of the big bang. Evolution is completely and totally separate from the big bang, and they have no relationship together. That you don’t understand this elementary point on the theories proves to me that you don’t understand the science behind evolution. Nor for evolution did exact mutation HAVE to happen. They did happen and it resulted in us, but if they were different then we would be different. Humans were not a determined end result that evolution worked toward, they are just one of many outcomes that could have happened. It is not faith, as it is based on evidence; you have no evidence of a god, so it is faith. We have evidence of the fossils of ancient animals so it is not faith.

Creationism is not a science because it does not follow the scientific method. Evolution is not based off faith, it is falsifiable and testable. Creationism is none of these things, and is not a science.
You rely on your faith of these pretty subatomic particles whether you subconsciously realize it or not.
I have no idea what this had to do with my comment but I will assure you that the subatomic particles are believed because there is evidence behind them.
Majority of the time, it is. First, let me tell you to go to the library, pick up the book called “The Young Earth” by John D. Morris and turn to page 13-15. I do not feel like typing out the entire passages.
Let me tell you to go pick up any high school science book and look for the date of the earth. The scientific community is all in agreement of the age of the earth and the dating methods of such, and they are not reliant on previously dated fossils.
That’s why I said he would not like my answer.
but you didn’t answer him, he asked for a critical look at the concept of a personal god, and you were unable or unwilling to do so.
God is not your “piggy bank” that you go to and ask for ___, ____, and ____. He is your friend. Your Mentor. Your Father. Your Creator. It is sad how the other amazing attributes of God is so easily (or purposely) forgotten.
god is not anything, no more evidence for a god than there is for an invisible pink unicorn.
Thank God for the Holy Spirit compelled the family to donate to the church. Let me tell you this. If you—man alone—without the help of God can raise $27,000 per month, than fine. Let me see you do it. Oh, and let me remind you that the only thing you’re allowed to do is preach to your congregation. Since that’s all my Reverend ever did.
Once again you belittle the generosity of the family. Why are you unable to thank the people for their generosity, why must you attribute it to a spirit. Do you have so little regard to your fellow man that the only way for them to be charitable is through the influence of god. This is not a celebration to the greatness of god, but the greatness of man.
Was that sarcasm sincerely needed? Believe in Jesus, and you are saved. At least murders who turned to Christianity were humble enough to admit that they’re not as powerful as they want to believe.
it is justice to you that Hitler a man that caused the deaths of millions of people will spend eternity in paradise, while a man who spent his life in the work in strengthening human rights is condemned to hell. Is this really what you as a Christian consider justice?
Sorry, that’s really far-fetched. That, hey if you add these letters together and this code you will get 666. Oh man, I have seen that done to so many various types of people. Here’s an example:
Pope John Paul III in Latin his name means “filii vicarivis dei”
Okay, now let’s use roman numerals to add his name.
F= 0, I= 1 ,L = 50, I = 1, I = 1
V=5, I=1, C=100, A=0, R=0, I= 1, V=5, I = 0, S = 0
D = 500, E = 0, I = 1
Add those numbers together. OH NO!! IT EQUALS 666!! AHH!! WHAT TO DO, WHAT TO DO?!
The reason why Nero Caesar is consider the correct number is because the is actually an ancient letter number value system at the time of the writer john. It is the reference to this number system that get this answer.
I would like to see your source for this. No slaves in Egypt? Ever? Well, they must have had a HUGE population to perform all those architectural structures. I don’t see any records of that.
I didn’t say there were no slaves in Egypt I said the slaves didn’t build the pyramids. In fact OtocontheOtaku didn’t say there were no slaves. But it is true that they didn’t have huge slave population, it was relatively small.
The architectural projects where done by Egyptians.
Sources.
“Contrary to popular belief, scholars do not believe that the pyramids of Egypt were built by Hebrew slaves or that they were built by slaves at all. The Hebrews came probably during the 18th Dynasty in the New Kingdom and by then pyramid building was a thing of the far past. Recently-found worker tombs have shown how pyramids were made and how important workers were: the pyramid workers were paid craftsmen, not slaves, and they had their own city at Giza.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids

[sadated_peon]

You’re thinking “as long as the good works over balances the bad works, you can go to heaven.” How would giving charity to the poor erase the fact that you killed somebody? Newsflash. God is perfect in every way. He does not allow one sin to enter his Kingdom. What’s the difference between a small sin (like lying) compared to a big sin (like mass murder) in his eyes? Nothing. They are still sin, they are still disgraceful, and you can’t get rid of it alone without Jesus’s help.
No, because there is no heaven. I am saying to feel better about what you have done while you are alive that person will do good things for others. Sin is a concept that only holds for those who believe in it. There is no such thing as sin, outside of the proclamations people.
I fear that the Da Vinci Code is your source. Mind telling me where you’re getting this info?
I am getting this from the catholic church themselves.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

Does the Inquisitions ring any sort of bell with you.
Let me tell you about Paul. Paul was a Roman citizen. You know what it means to be a Roman Citizen? It means you were protected by the government—a privilege many did not have and would pay big bucks to get. Paul was a Pharisees and VERY Jewish. He was a strong persecutor of the Christian faith because he did not think they were following God’s laws.

Yet, on the road to Damascus, Paul met Jesus through a vision and his life changed. He went from a life or privilege and luxury to a life of suffering. And he LOVED doing it too. He was truly transformed and believed ever so firmly in the life of Jesus.
I also would like to point out that Paul met Jesus in a vision and he is qualified to be considered an apostle. In Galations 2:19 “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.” This shows that Peter, James, and John---the BIG GUYS in the Christian church—agreed that Paul’s doctrine was indeed correct. They recognized that Paul was equal spiritually and deserved recognition status as an apostle.
Jesus was dead at the time paul revelation, and we are looking at this through a historical standpoint. The vision which you stand by, is not first hand account of Jesus, first hand account in respects to history means that you were present or there in a physical sense of the word.
Paul never met jesus, he had a vision of him, but that is not meeting him, it is a vision.
Too long, didn't read. Could you guys try parsing your arguments down a bit, or maybe not quoting each other's entire passage.
sorry, you gunna have to read.

[coolpuprocks]

because of my overload of school work, I will only respond to one of your posts today, and the other at a later time.
He have no evidence of anything that Jesus has done, just the fictitious tales of someone with his name.
These things are exactly like magic tricks, just done 2000 years ago. They all can be proven wrong.
Explain this to me. If everything Jesus did was a fake and a "magic trick," than why did all his disciples willing risk their lives to spread the word? Okay, even Jesus's own brother was convinced that Jesus was Christ after Jesus's resurrection. Try explaining to your brother that you are the Son of Man. I bet he'll have a good laugh.


I have read the bible, cover to cover, and no where is there an explanation of god's mind. There is no one that knows god’s mind, and no where is it explained. That is why the phrase exists, because no one know the ways that god works, not then, and not now.
a bit extreme, aren't we? We know what God wants us to do and why we should do it. That should've been clearly written for you to see.


you said.
“Would you like me to cross reference Bible points with History—proven history?”
You separated the bible from proven history, but if you want reverse it fine. The bible is not proven history, in fact it contradicts history. The flood for example is completely and totally false.
What? Now I have to give an english lesson? No, I didn't separate the Bible from proven history. "Proven history" is a modifier for "history." The Bible matches history.

Actually we have, we have done it with bacteria, we have allowed bacteria to evolve in laboratories into new species, through mutation.
Bacteria is on the genetic level. I said we played around on the genetic level already. Mutated a few genes here and there. But we have yet to create a brand new species for the Animal Kingdom.


If you understood science that you would know that evolution is a scientific theory, to say otherwise mean you don’t understand science.
You used the same statement against my rebutal. That doesn't say much.


No, I have evidence, by the fact that matter can not be created or destroyed. As that is true what exists now must have always existed.
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed? So you're saying everything that was always was there. I can same the same thing about God than. He always was and always is there =D


No, I don’t have faith, I have evidence. These theories are built off evidence, and exist only as long as evidence agrees with them. There are not taken on faith.
Creationists look at the same thing Evolutionists look at. Neither can go back in time to look at what really happen. Thus they got to anaylize what's in front of them. It is the same evidence, just interpreted differently. Your "evidence" is also creationist "evidence" whether you realize it or not.

I am trying to say this. If evolution is a science, than creationism is a science. If evolution is a faith, than creationism is a faith.


First evolution has nothing to do with subatomic particles that existed at the time of the big bang. Evolution is completely and totally separate from the big bang, and they have no relationship together. That you don’t understand this elementary point on the theories proves to me that you don’t understand the science behind evolution. Nor for evolution did exact mutation HAVE to happen. They did happen and it resulted in us, but if they were different then we would be different. Humans were not a determined end result that evolution worked toward, they are just one of many outcomes that could have happened.
I think faster than I type sometimes.
This is what I was trying to say. Evolution has it's roots from a big swarm pool of DNA. Out came creatures, one by one. Little guys first. Eventually evolving to the bigger guys. Agreed? Now, where did this DNA come from? Where did this earth come from? Big Bang Theory. How did the Big Bang Theory develop from? From a blast of subatomic particles. There, I filled in the missing dots on how I got to subatomic particles.

Evolution is based on Natural Selection. You develop mutation, you have a greater chance of surviving to pass on the trait. You don't develop the mutation, you have a less chance of surviving to pass on the trait. Better traits overdominates the larger traits. Worse traits dies off, better traits live.

I don't see how you don't see "the exact mutation HAVE to happen." Get the mutation, you live. Don't, and you'll probably die. Horrible life, right? And to think, you got a one time shot at getting it or not getting the correct gene. The likeability of getting every proper gene at the right time is hardly likely. (after all, what's so good about a perfect heart functioning but an imperfect lung? You can't pass on the good heart gene because you're dead from the bad lung gene.)

It is not faith, as it is based on evidence; you have no evidence of a god, so it is faith. We have evidence of the fossils of ancient animals so it is not faith.
You have no evidence of these so called "missing links" that existed that connects man with apes (or whatever animal we mysteriously evolved from). There are many "missing links" that creatures mysteriously evolved from.

Creationism is not a science because it does not follow the scientific method. Evolution is not based off faith, it is falsifiable and testable. Creationism is none of these things, and is not a science.
This is your definition of science? You're saying creationism isn't a science because it doesn't follow the scientific method??? Fine, NEITHER DOES EVOLUTION!! I have already showed you that. The last step of the scientific method is to reproduce the experiment. (and if you disagree with that, than go argue with your science teacher). Evolution is NOT RETESTABLE!! you can't retest to show me how humans evolved. You can't retest to show me how mammals evolved. how reptiles evolved? how fishes and the birds evolved?? you can only show me stimulations. stimulations based on theories, not on facts.

Let me tell you to go pick up any high school science book and look for the date of the earth. The scientific community is all in agreement of the age of the earth and the dating methods of such, and they are not reliant on previously dated fossils.
far from agreement! I've seen so many different dates. 5 billion, 6 billion. ect. and saying they are "all in agreement" is really extreme. I know for a fact that the Christian scientists (yes, there are Christian Scientist--they really do exist!!) do not believe the same.

but you didn’t answer him, he asked for a critical look at the concept of a personal god, and you were unable or unwilling to do so.
I gave him a personal testimony. That's why I said, he was not going to like my answer.

god is not anything, no more evidence for a god than there is for an invisible pink unicorn.
now that's just plain rude. God does exist. Whether you want to acknowledge his presence is obviously a totally different story.

Once again you belittle the generosity of the family. Why are you unable to thank the people for their generosity, why must you attribute it to a spirit. Do you have so little regard to your fellow man that the only way for them to be charitable is through the influence of god. This is not a celebration to the greatness of god, but the greatness of man.
They did not donate for the glory of man, but for the glory of God. If they truly wanted to glorify themselves, than they would have bragged and pranced around waving a huge check in the air screaming "I AM SO GENEROUS!! LOOK AT ME!!"

it is justice to you that Hitler a man that caused the deaths of millions of people will spend eternity in paradise, while a man who spent his life in the work in strengthening human rights is condemned to hell. Is this really what you as a Christian consider justice?
I have never said Hitler went to heaven since I do not know if he was a believer of Christ. (he probably wasn't and was damned to hell). I am saying a mass killer is no more guilty of sin than a child who lied once in his life. Everyone is damned to hell unless if we choose to ask for forgiveness.

The reason why Nero Caesar is consider the correct number is because the is actually an ancient letter number value system at the time of the writer john. It is the reference to this number system that get this answer.
you seriously look into this 666 number way too much. Things are not always so litteral! 666 is a symbol of the Anti-Christ. not of nero caesar. (if i remember correctly, Nero Caesar was a complete idiot who even tried getting a horse to be a senator. Not too positive about that though.) Do i believe we will all get handstamped with 666 on our forehead and our hand? No. I believe that 666 is just a symbol to describe the mark of the devil. I believe this marking of the devil will come in the form of a microchip placed underneath your skin on your forehead and hand. Sorta like a retina scanner.

[sadated_peon]

Explain this to me. If everything Jesus did was a fake and a "magic trick," than why did all his disciples willing risk their lives to spread the word? Okay, even Jesus's own brother was convinced that Jesus was Christ after Jesus's resurrection. Try explaining to your brother that you are the Son of Man. I bet he'll have a good laugh.
for the same reason the Muslims followed Muhammad into battle, for the same reason that buddist set themselves on fire in protest, for the same reason that the greeks erected statues to their gods, for the same reason the Egyptians built the pyramids for their dead.
People believe crazy shit, always have, and always will.
a bit extreme, aren't we? We know what God wants us to do and why we should do it. That should've been clearly written for you to see.
But that is not what he was talking about, he said that one God with certain characteristics and motives, it is a description of god, and your answer here had absolutely nothing to do with a description of god, but instead on a command from god.
What? Now I have to give an english lesson? No, I didn't separate the Bible from proven history. "Proven history" is a modifier for "history." The Bible matches history.
you said you want to cross reference the bible. Which is one thing. With proven history, which is another thing.
You can not cross reference something with itself. You separated the bible from proven history.
Bacteria is on the genetic level. etc
No, bacteria have genes but they are not on the genetic level. But we didn’t mutate anything, the bacteria mutated on there own, and mutated into a new species. Which is the process of evolution, it was not done by man, just observed by man.
You used the same statement against my rebutal. That doesn't say much.
because it true, and you have yet to counter it.
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed? So you're saying everything that was always was there. I can same the same thing about God than. He always was and always is there =D
There is no evidence of god exists, so no you can not say that.
Creationists look at the same thing Evolutionists look at. Neither can go back in time to look at what really happen. Thus they got to anaylize what's in front of them. It is the same evidence, just interpreted differently. Your "evidence" is also creationist "evidence" whether you realize it or not.

I am trying to say this. If evolution is a science, than creationism is a science. If evolution is a faith, than creationism is a faith.
creationists don’t have evidence to support themselves. Creationism isn’t a science because the evidence proves them wrong, and they still continue.
I think faster than I type sometimes.
This is what I was trying to say. Evolution has it's roots from a big swarm pool of DNA.
no this is incorrect, evolution does not deal with the creation of life. Evolution deals with how life evolved into other forms of life.
Out came creatures, one by one. Little guys first. Eventually evolving to the bigger guys. Agreed?
no, evolution describes the process by which an organism though natural selection, and mutation evolves through the generations.
Now, where did this DNA come from? Where did this earth come from? Big Bang Theory. How did the Big Bang Theory develop from? From a blast of subatomic particles. There, I filled in the missing dots on how I got to subatomic particles.
No, you are incorrect to link these things. If the big bang is wrong, and the universe was created differently then it says absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution being wrong. They are not connected. If the earth was created differently then how we know it does not effect the theory of evolution. They are separate theories that do not depend on each other, and are not linked.

Evolution is based on Natural Selection. You develop mutation, you have a greater chance of surviving to pass on the trait. You don't develop the mutation, you have a less chance of surviving to pass on the trait. Better traits overdominates the larger traits. Worse traits dies off, better traits live.
No, mutations are all random, and there is nothing to say that a mutation will help a species survive. It is random chance that leads to a mutation being beneficial.

I don't see how you don't see "the exact mutation HAVE to happen." Get the mutation, you live. etc
You are looking at it backward, we humans didn’t HAVE to exist, therefore the mutations that lead to us existing didn’t HAVE to happen. If in the process of our evolution we didn’t get a mutation that we have today, it would be normal for us to not have that mutation.
But our lungs don’t work perfectly, and our harts don’t work perfectly. There is much room for improvement in both, and the human race has the ability to evolve with mutations to make them better.
You have no evidence of these so called "missing links" that existed that connects man with apes (or whatever animal we mysteriously evolved from). There are many "missing links" that creatures mysteriously evolved from.
there is no such thing as “missing links” anymore, we have enough of a fossil record to adequately track the evolution of man from ape to human. Anyone claiming there are still “missing links” that are too large to be explained is wrong. But even the gaps that exist today are merely small gaps in a huge mound of evidence. We have evidence that things evolve, even if there are small gaps.
You have no evidence of god.
This is your definition of science? You're saying creationism isn't a science because it doesn't follow the scientific method???
What? Are you kidding me? That is what is what means to be a science. The scientific method is science, and science is the scientific method. That you would even question this is unbelievable.

Fine, NEITHER DOES EVOLUTION!! etc
First of all, the mammal, reptile, and all other organism evolution was not a TEST of evolution. It is the natural world that is examined. All tests are done by the scientist under verifiable conditions. The original natural phenomenon is not a test. The test for evolution is showing that it can happen, for example bacteria evolving in a lab. Then this is retested again by other scientist to show that it valid.

I gave you an example with the sun; the theory about the sun is that it is a fusion reaction of hydrogen. The test for this included the testing of fusion reaction in labs, but it does not include creating a new sun. You really need to learn how science works, because so far you have shown you don’t.
far from agreement! I've seen so many different dates. 5 billion, 6 billion. ect. and saying they are "all in agreement" is really extreme. I know for a fact that the Christian scientists (yes, there are Christian Scientist--they really do exist!!) do not believe the same.
The age of the earth is agreed to around be 4.5 billion years old. No high school science text book with have it be anything else, and scientist are in agreement in this. There is no such thing as a Christian Science; the scientific community has rejected them because they don’t follow science. But the young earth Christians have been proven wrong.
I gave him a personal testimony. That's why I said, he was not going to like my answer.
but you still didn’t answer his question, you answered a different question that was never asked.
now that's just plain rude. God does exist. Whether you want to acknowledge his presence is obviously a totally different story.
There is no evidence that god exists. Just as there is no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists.
They did not donate for the glory of etc
But if they did that then they are trying to get something out of it, and it is no longer the same. But this is not the glory of god, it is the glory of man, as it was man than made and donated the money not god.
I have never said Hitler went to heaven since I do not know if he was a believer of Christ. (he probably wasn't and was damned to hell). I am saying a mass killer is no more guilty of sin than a child who lied once in his life. Everyone is damned to hell unless if we choose to ask for forgiveness.
He was a believer in Christ and the bible. He emphasised the importance of having a Christian Germany.
you seriously look into this 666 number way too much. Things are not always so litteral! 666 is a symbol of the Anti-Christ. not of nero caesar. (if i remember correctly, Nero Caesar was a complete idiot who even tried getting a horse to be a senator. Not too positive about that though.) Do i believe we will all get handstamped etc
I don’t, I get this information from biblical scholars.
Yes, things are not always literal, like for example 6-day creation, the flood, the exodus, etc.
No that was not nero, that was caligular, Nero was emperor from 54 AD to 68 AD, and was famous for his persecution of Christians. He often executed them in the coliseum. The entire book of revelations is actually written in code, and it describes the Roman empire.
Here this explains some of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelations

[maj1n]

Explain this to me. If everything Jesus did was a fake and a "magic trick," than why did all his disciples willing risk their lives to spread the word? Okay, even Jesus's own brother was convinced that Jesus was Christ after Jesus's resurrection. Try explaining to your brother that you are the Son of Man. I bet he'll have a good laugh.

there is absolutely no evidence that the disciples of Jesus exist, furthermore there is no evidence of Jesus existing which is verified by any archeological data, in fact if you were to believe the Bible as evidence, then there is contradictory evidence to his existance.


What? Now I have to give an english lesson? No, I didn't separate the Bible from proven history. "Proven history" is a modifier for "history." The Bible matches history.

No it does not, here is a simple contradiction, in two of the gospels, Jesus' lineage is different.


Bacteria is on the genetic level. I said we played around on the genetic level already. Mutated a few genes here and there. But we have yet to create a brand new species for the Animal Kingdom.

"n the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendents of two separate diploid parent species."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#observed-speciation


Matter can be neither created nor destroyed? So you're saying everything that was always was there. I can same the same thing about God than. He always was and always is there =D

you need evidence to support somethings existance, for if you can say God is eternal, polythiestists can say their GODS exist.
Both your beliefs are not compatible.


Creationists look at the same thing Evolutionists look at. Neither can go back in time to look at what really happen. Thus they got to anaylize what's in front of them. It is the same evidence, just interpreted differently. Your "evidence" is also creationist "evidence" whether you realize it or not.

incorrect.
Firstly, there is things that you cannot interpret differently, if i measure a wall to be of a length 30cm with an accurate ruler, can you say that a creationist can interpret this wall to be 1000000cm and still be correct? no, you have a flawed argument.


I am trying to say this. If evolution is a science, than creationism is a science. If evolution is a faith, than creationism is a faith.

something which is science, adheres to the scientific method, creationism does not.
Stop playing stupid word games, can i say a cat is a dog? no, there is strict criteria for something to be science, that is what makes it science.


I think faster than I type sometimes.
This is what I was trying to say. Evolution has it's roots from a big swarm pool of DNA. Out came creatures, one by one. Little guys first. Eventually evolving to the bigger guys. Agreed? Now, where did this DNA come from? Where did this earth come from? Big Bang Theory. How did the Big Bang Theory develop from? From a blast of subatomic particles. There, I filled in the missing dots on how I got to subatomic particles.

Evolution is based on Natural Selection. You develop mutation, you have a greater chance of surviving to pass on the trait. You don't develop the mutation, you have a less chance of surviving to pass on the trait. Better traits overdominates the larger traits. Worse traits dies off, better traits live.

I don't see how you don't see "the exact mutation HAVE to happen." Get the mutation, you live. Don't, and you'll probably die. Horrible life, right? And to think, you got a one time shot at getting it or not getting the correct gene. The likeability of getting every proper gene at the right time is hardly likely. (after all, what's so good about a perfect heart functioning but an imperfect lung? You can't pass on the good heart gene because you're dead from the bad lung gene.)

consider all the species that died because they failed to inherit a mutation which could have saved them.
Consider this, out of 52 players, what chance is there that one will get a king of spades? 1/52, very unlikely, but with 52 people choosing cards, it becomes almost inevitable that SOMEONE will get it.


You have no evidence of these so called "missing links" that existed that connects man with apes (or whatever animal we mysteriously evolved from). There are many "missing links" that creatures mysteriously evolved from.

I have heard this many times, and i have the perfect rebuttle.
were you born from a human? right you have a photo or evidence of your parents so yes, do you have a photo of their parents? of their parents parents? of their parents parents parents?
do you have a photo of your 8th ancestor?
If not, BY YOUR LOGIC WE CANT SAY YOUR 8th generation ANCESTORS CAME FROM HUMAN PARENTS OR WERE HUMAN OR EXISTED.



This is your definition of science? You're saying creationism isn't a science because it doesn't follow the scientific method??? Fine, NEITHER DOES EVOLUTION!! I have already showed you that. The last step of the scientific method is to reproduce the experiment. (and if you disagree with that, than go argue with your science teacher). Evolution is NOT RETESTABLE!! you can't retest to show me how humans evolved. You can't retest to show me how mammals evolved. how reptiles evolved? how fishes and the birds evolved?? you can only show me stimulations. stimulations based on theories, not on facts.

your incorrect here, tests are done to validate a hypothesis and by extension a theory, not necessarily recreating the theory itself.
FOR EXAMPLE DO YOU KNOW THE EARTH IS FLAT OR NOT? CAN YOU TEST THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT BY CREATING ANOTHER EARTH? BY GOING AROUND THE EARTH MEASURING IT?
your logic is so flawed its laughable.

Or here is another one, you think your great grandparents grew up from a baby eh? can you test this by observing it please? do it for me someday.


far from agreement! I've seen so many different dates. 5 billion, 6 billion. ect. and saying they are "all in agreement" is really extreme. I know for a fact that the Christian scientists (yes, there are Christian Scientist--they really do exist!!) do not believe the same.

Here is a rebuttle, let us say 10000000 people do a maths test and on one question that asks for a suitable range to an answer, lets say they all get 8-10, are you going to tell me that somehow the answer -100000 is right?


now that's just plain rude. God does exist. Whether you want to acknowledge his presence is obviously a totally different story.

provide evidence of its existance, but how can you? for all the evidence you could possibly gain is from a universe which obeys natural laws, how can you possibly detect something supernatural, with natural laws?


I have never said Hitler went to heaven since I do not know if he was a believer of Christ. (he probably wasn't and was damned to hell). I am saying a mass killer is no more guilty of sin than a child who lied once in his life. Everyone is damned to hell unless if we choose to ask for forgiveness.

if that is what you believe, then that is an evil belief, how can you justify believing people by default go to torture unless they choose to worship your own religion? thats inherent intolerance

edit: Sadated you stole my pink unicorn! i want it back!
:P

[sadated_peon]

edit: Sadated you stole my pink unicorn! i want it back!

I wondered when you would show up :).

but...... yes..... I did, the unicorn has websites devoted to it and has follows, which can be used as evidence for belief. so it works better.

[Bane of Mist]

Ok. Time to rumble in the jungle. It's been a while since I had a good debate . . .
But that is not what he was talking about, he said that one God with certain characteristics and motives, it is a description of god, and your answer here had absolutely nothing to do with a description of god, but instead on a command from god.

Characteristics of God eh? It seems you won't believe anything in the Bible, and I can't answer the question without referring to it, so I'll just answer it from the Bible. God knows everything, God can do anything, God is everywhere at once (something which I'm sure you will have trouble believing) God is love. (I know you'll prob. come at me with some "but what about the suffering in the world." and I'll happy to answer that when you do, but for now, I'll stick with the characterics of God) God is eternal. God is Holy, tied with that is His justness. God's motives are always His glory, and His love for men, however sick and perverted they are. God loves everyone equally. That, I believe, should suffice for that quote, although, as I said, you probably want more than what the Bible says.

No, bacteria have genes but they are not on the genetic level. But we didn’t mutate anything, the bacteria mutated on there own, and mutated into a new species. Which is the process of evolution, it was not done by man, just observed by man.
creationists don’t have evidence to support themselves. Creationism isn’t a science because the evidence proves them wrong, and they still continue.


I'll just do the whole evolution thing right here, as much as I can. Number one, probability. 4.5 billion years on the age of the earth, eh? Well, the actual probability of raw chemicals forming amino acids, then the amino acids forming proteins, then forming DNA, then the dna somehow gathering the materials necessary to create a single celled organism is so low that it's virtually impossible. (I can't remember the actual stat, but I can look it up if necessary) Now,you say, it could happen, given enough time, but you only have 4.5 billion years to work with, unless you want to bring in the aliens. Alright, given that against all odds the chemicals managed to turn themselves into DNA and create little, singlecelled organisms, then we have the next problem of growing them fins, then legs, then fur, then making them stand up and walk and talk like people. While I'm here I'll talk about the scientific method. The scientific method goes something like this: A scientist goes out into the field, and makes an observation, He then creates a hypothesis to accomodate for his observation, then returns to the lab and tests his hypothesis with experiments. If the experiments prove the hypothesis wrong, he creates another one which fits with all of his current data. Here is where evolution falls down. You say bacteria have been observed to mutate into new species, first, you have to define species properly. ( something which the entire biological community is divided on) Now, there's two types of evolution: The Theory of Evolution, and evolution. The theory is your basic goo to you theory of evolution, made popular by darwin. Evolution (with a small e) is the observed fact that over generations species change. This is, I believe, what you were observing with your bacteria, which multiply very quickly and therefore are ideal for observing genetic changes in. Darwin observed this among the finches in the galapagos, which is, I believe, commonly known. This is natural selection, which IS an observable scientific law. The reason that you can't apply it to the theory of Evolution is that where natural selection always involves a loss of genetic information, Evolution requires a gain, hence the need for random mutations and the advent of neodarwinism. Now, the thing about random beneficial mutations is, they've never been observed. The sole arguable beneficial mutation reduces your odds of getting malaria, but at the same time you get sickle-cell anemia, so it's not really a beneficial mutation at all. The scientific method requires an observation, somethign which neodarwinism does not have, at least on a genetic level.

creationists don’t have evidence to support themselves. Creationism isn’t a science because the evidence proves them wrong, and they still continue.
If you think that the evidence proves creationists wrong, then I suggest you look at www.answersingenesis.org and have a read of a few of the creation evolution articles. Even if you think they're written from a particular bias, which they are, beyond that they give most of the evidence you'll need.
But our lungs don’t work perfectly, and our harts don’t work perfectly. There is much room for improvement in both, and the human race has the ability to evolve with mutations to make them better.
I would like to know how our lungs and heart could function better, while still allowing for them to have deteriorated slightly since we first got them.
there is no such thing as “missing links” anymore,
But even the gaps that exist today
Despite the fact that you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph, yes, there are still "missing links". You may think that the human history of evolution is complete, however you failed to mention that there are still quite large gaps in the animal record. As for humans, I don't see how you can say it's complete. Most of the fossil finds held up as paragons of Evolution are fakes. Lucy, for example. there is evidence that the reconstructor changed her position from being stopped over on all fours to being upright.
There is no such thing as a Christian Science; the scientific community has rejected them because they don’t follow science. But the young earth Christians have been proven wrong.
really. see above. And jsut because the great and holy "scientific community" deems somethign wrong doesn't mean it is. for example, the scientific community of the day thought Columbas was insane when he said the world was round.
There is no evidence that god exists. Just as there is no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists.
I don't even want to go there. You postmodernists and your tolerance, where is it now?
He [Hitler] was a believer in Christ and the bible. He emphasised the importance of having a Christian Germany.
That doesn't mean that he went to heaven. According to Christians such as myself, the requirement for salvation is several things. 1) believe Jesus died on the cross to take your place, and that he rose again three days later. 2) repent of said sins
True repentance is followed by a changing of actions, nto because it's necessary for salvation, but because it's what Jesus would have us to do. The mass murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. is not exactly what I would call repentance.
I don’t, I get this information from biblical scholars.
Biblical scholars are in disagreement over that very issue. In fact, I just read abook which suggests that perhaps revelation is symbolic, historical (i.e. nero) and prophetic. An interesting theory.
there is absolutely no evidence that the disciples of Jesus exist, furthermore there is no evidence of Jesus existing which is verified by any archeological data, in fact if you were to believe the Bible as evidence, then there is contradictory evidence to his existance.
Who wrote the new testament, if not the disciples? Who started Christianity, if not the disciples? far out dude, the biggest evidence that Jesus and the disciples existed is the very fact that christianity exists. As for archeological data, I don't have anything right now, but I can get it if necessary . . .
No it does not, here is a simple contradiction, in two of the gospels, Jesus' lineage is different
obviously you read far enough to get to the difference, but not far enough. Either that or you just got the information off of some website. One of the lineages is of Jesus' father, the other from his mother.
incorrect.
Firstly, there is things that you cannot interpret differently, if i measure a wall to be of a length 30cm with an accurate ruler, can you say that a creationist can interpret this wall to be 1000000cm and still be correct? no, you have a flawed argument.
This is a flawed argument. The statement was, that both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. It's true, the evidence is the fossil record. And comparing interpreting the length of a wall with the fossil record is just ludicrous.
something which is science, adheres to the scientific method, creationism does not.
if creation doesn't, neither does evolution (see above) however, creation still does adhere to the scientific method, it just uses one more piece of evidence to interpret the data. The Bible.
consider all the species that died because they failed to inherit a mutation which could have saved them.
Consider this, out of 52 players, what chance is there that one will get a king of spades? 1/52, very unlikely, but with 52 people choosing cards, it becomes almost inevitable that SOMEONE will get it.
Again, there isn't enough time to actually do it. We don't have 52 players, we have like, 1/millionth of a player
for all the evidence you could possibly gain is from a universe which obeys natural laws, how can you possibly detect something supernatural, with natural laws?

Why are there natural laws to begin with? You can say that they were alwys there, but why?

Well, there's a few of my answers.

[sadated_peon]

Characteristics of God eh? It seems you won't believe anything in the Bible, and I can't answer the question without referring to it, so I'll just answer it from the Bible. God knows everything, God can do anything, God is everywhere at once (something which I'm sure you will have trouble believing) God is love. (I know you'll prob. come at me with some "but what about the suffering in the world." and I'll happy to answer that when you do, but for now, I'll stick with the characterics of God) God is eternal. God is Holy, tied with that is His justness. God's motives are always His glory, and His love for men, however sick and perverted they are. God loves everyone equally. That, I believe, should suffice for that quote, although, as I said, you probably want more than what the Bible says.
If god knows everything, then he knows his own future, and has no free will.
If god can do anything then he can contradicts his own nature. (make a round square)
He is everywhere but there is no evidence of him anywhere.
If god is love, then why did he tell Moses to kill the woman and male children of Jericho, and enslave the virgin women.

You didn’t explain his motives at all, let me give you an example, why to bad things happen to good people. Why did 2 hurricanes come across the U.S., why do tornado’s ravage the Midwest. Why did a earth quake destroy countless lives in Pakistan. Please explain the motives behind these actions. Please explain these actions attributed to god.
I didn’t make up the “god works in mysterious ways” line, but I guess I going to have fun watching someone try and explain that they do know why everything has ever happened.
I'll just do the whole evolution thing right here, as much as I can. Number one, probability. 4.5 billion years on the age of the earth, eh? Well, the actual probability of raw chemicals forming amino acids, then the amino acids forming proteins, then forming DNA, then the dna somehow gathering the materials necessary to create a single celled organism is so low that it's virtually impossible. (I can't remember the actual stat, but I can look it up if necessary) Now,you say, it could happen, given enough time, but you only have 4.5 billion years to work with, unless you want to bring in the aliens.
Well first of all this is not evolution or the theory of evolution (they are the same thing, but we will get to that later). Evolution is the process by which life evolves into another form of life, it does not deal with origins of life.
But you are wrong; the probability of it happen was 1, because it did happen. Probability is a measurement used when factors are sufficiently complex that they are unknown. As in rolling a dice, the spin on the die, the force of the throw, air resistance, the friction of the table, etc. all go into predicting what face the die will land on. These things are sufficiently complex that we are unable to predict what face it will land on so we rely on probability. BUT, these things are NOT random, if you were to go back in time and that throw was repeat it would land on the exact same face, it would always land on that face. After it lands we know the probability it would land on that face is 1, and if we were to go back in time the probability of it landing on that face is 1. Like the die that has already been thrown, we know that the probability of life happening is 1.
Alright, given that against all odds the chemicals managed to turn themselves into DNA and create little, singlecelled organisms, then we have the next problem of growing them fins, then legs, then fur, then making them stand up and walk and talk like people.
Now this is evolution, the transformation of one organism into another one. The fins, legs, fur, stand up, walk, talk are all possible outcomes for what could have happened, but they were in no way required to happen.
For example let say I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10^999999999999999999999999999, and lets say you pick the number 44456454. The probability of you picking that number was 1/10^999999999999999999999999999, now does that mean that you just did the impossible and picked a number with 1/10^999999999999999999999999999 chance behind it? no, the chance of you picking ANY number was 1/1. This is how evolution works, there are many many different possibilities, and humans just happened to be picked. We are number 44456454 in the above example.
While I'm here I'll talk about the scientific method. The scientific method goes something like this: A scientist goes out into the field, and makes an observation, He then creates a hypothesis to accomodate for his observation, then returns to the lab and tests his hypothesis with experiments. If the experiments prove the hypothesis wrong, he creates another one which fits with all of his current data. Here is where evolution falls down. You say bacteria have been observed to mutate into new species, first, you have to define species properly. ( something which the entire biological community is divided on) Now, there's two types of evolution: The Theory of Evolution, and evolution. The theory is your basic goo to you theory of evolution, made popular by darwin. Evolution (with a small e) is the observed fact that over generations species change. This is, I believe, what you were observing with your bacteria, which multiply very quickly and therefore are ideal for observing genetic changes in. Darwin observed this among the finches in the galapagos, which is, I believe, commonly known. This is natural selection, which IS an observable scientific law. The reason that you can't apply it to the theory of Evolution is that where natural selection always involves a loss of genetic information, Evolution requires a gain, hence the need for random mutations and the advent of neodarwinism. Now, the thing about random beneficial mutations is, they've never been observed. The sole arguable beneficial mutation reduces your odds of getting malaria, but at the same time you get sickle-cell anemia, so it's not really a beneficial mutation at all. The scientific method requires an observation, somethign which neodarwinism does not have, at least on a genetic level.
you basically got the scientific method down.
But you got evolution wrong. The theory of evolution does not describe goo to you, it describes life to life, and the theory of evolution describes the process of evolution (small e) The bacteria that were observed WAS NOT JUST NATURAL SELECTION. It was MUTATION, new beneficial genetic material was mutated in the bacteria, and this lead to the classification of a new species. Random beneficial mutations have been observed, here is a link. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Science does require observation, and testing, both of which have shown beneficial mutations.
If you think that the evidence proves creationists wrong, then I suggest you look at www.answersingenesis.org and have a read of a few of the creation evolution articles. Even if you think they're written from a particular bias, which they are, beyond that they give most of the evidence you'll need.
Yes, people have linked to it before, and most of it is wrong, or complete BS. You can look through the creationism thread where I have countered most of there articles, which people have posted. But here you can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ for explanation as to why not only is creationism is wrong, but why evolution is right.
I would like to know how our lungs and heart could function better,.
They could work better in many ways, they could take out more oxegen from the air, they could be more resistant to toxins, like CO2 and tar (less lung cancer), for that matter they could not get caner at all, they could have a larger capacity so with could hold our breath longer, there so many improvements is silly to ask what could be done. As for the heart it could also avoid cancer, it to prevent the build up of blockages, it could be more resilient of trama, it could be stronger, its walls could be more resistant, and the list goes on.
while still allowing for them to have deteriorated slightly since we first got them
what?

[sadated_peon]

Despite the fact that you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph, yes, there are still "missing links". You may think that the human history of evolution is complete, however you failed to mention that there are still quite large gaps in the animal record. As for humans, I don't see how you can say it's complete. Most of the fossil finds held up as paragons of Evolution are fakes. Lucy, for example. there is evidence that the reconstructor changed her position from being stopped over on all fours to being upright.
I did not contradict my self, “missing links” are gap that are so large in the fossil record you can not track the progression of man from ancient ape to human. And as I said “we have enough of a fossil record to adequately track the evolution of man from ape to human.” Small gaps are not missing links. There have been some fakes, but there are enough fossils to track the evolution of man completely. Fossils show the transformation clearly and without two stages that can not be connected. And lucy was an partial skeleton as was not found in a walking position at all. Her position in the ground is neither up right or on all fours.
really. see above. And jsut because the great and holy "scientific community" deems somethign wrong doesn't mean it is. for example, the scientific community of the day thought Columbas was insane when he said the world was round.
actually that was the church, there was no such thing as a scientific community at the time of Columbus. The scientific community is relatively new, basically within the last 100-150 years. Young earths Christians are not scientists, and they have been proven wrong. See above.
I don't even want to go there. You postmodernists and your tolerance, where is it now?
lost it when you started you forcing your ignorance on children.
That doesn't mean that he went to heaven. According to Christians such as myself, the requirement for salvation is several things. 1) believe Jesus died on the cross to take your place, and that he rose again three days later. 2) repent of said sins
True repentance is followed by a changing of actions, nto because it's necessary for salvation, but because it's what Jesus would have us to do. The mass murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. is not exactly what I would call repentance.
well according to coolpuprocks, all that is needed is for you to accept jesus, and you will go to heaven. To which I was arguing, if you disagree, I suggest you take it up with coolpuprocks.
Biblical scholars are in disagreement over that very issue. In fact, I just read abook which suggests that perhaps revelation is symbolic, historical (i.e. nero) and prophetic. An interesting theory.
and of course now we see the catholic church in England saying that it is not literal, seems to have moved past biblical theory.

I will let maj1n take over his side :P

[maj1n]

I'll just do the whole evolution thing right here, as much as I can. Number one, probability. 4.5 billion years on the age of the earth, eh? Well, the actual probability of raw chemicals forming amino acids, then the amino acids forming proteins, then forming DNA, then the dna somehow gathering the materials necessary to create a single celled organism is so low that it's virtually impossible. (I can't remember the actual stat, but I can look it up if necessary) Now,you say, it could happen, given enough time, but you only have 4.5 billion years to work with, unless you want to bring in the aliens.

Probability is exactly 1, if you ever bring this argument into any reputed science debate, you will be laughed at.
Here is an even easier example, flip a coin, whatever side it lands on, tell me the probability of it landing on that side for that toss.

Also, tests have already created amino acids from concieved early conditions of earth.


Now, there's two types of evolution: The Theory of Evolution, and evolution. The theory is your basic goo to you theory of evolution, made popular by darwin.

there is no theory of evolution and evolution, there is ONLY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Since you got that wrong, you are not very well versed in THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.


Evolution (with a small e) is the observed fact that over generations species change. This is, I believe, what you were observing with your bacteria, which multiply very quickly and therefore are ideal for observing genetic changes in. Darwin observed this among the finches in the galapagos, which is, I believe, commonly known. This is natural selection, which IS an observable scientific law. The reason that you can't apply it to the theory of Evolution is that where natural selection always involves a loss of genetic information, Evolution requires a gain,

Your silly argument with 'information' is from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
That alone alarms me.

Firstly, you dont have ANY satisfactory definition of 'information' and i would know because ive encountered this debate in a seminar with creationists and scientists.

Increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003).

And according to the Shannon-Weaver information theory " random noise maximizes information" and this counters where your argument stems from.

"Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information"
which is from that creationist website.

So your utterly wrong, both in the vague information theory, and evolution.



Now, the thing about random beneficial mutations is, they've never been observed. The sole arguable beneficial mutation reduces your odds of getting malaria, but at the same time you get sickle-cell anemia, so it's not really a beneficial mutation at all. The scientific method requires an observation, somethign which neodarwinism does not have, at least on a genetic level.

beneficial mutations depend on the context or situation, this is so basic that your failure at understanding leads me to question your understanding of evolution.

You seem to be pandering to some type of 'universal' beneficial mutation, there is none, a mutation is beneficial if and only if they give an advantage to an organism by its environment.
To put it in another way, a mutation that makes an organism more tolerant to cold and less to heat, works better in cold climates, but is detrimantal in hot climates.
understand?



If you think that the evidence proves creationists wrong, then I suggest you look at www.answersingenesis.org and have a read of a few of the creation evolution articles. Even if you think they're written from a particular bias, which they are, beyond that they give most of the evidence you'll need.

they are wrong, all of it.
It is no surprise that the vast vast vast majority of biological science agrees in evolution, because all observed evidence agrees with the theory, and NOT creationism.


I would like to know how our lungs and heart could function better, while still allowing for them to have deteriorated slightly since we first got them.

Actually i have a better one, WHAT IS THE USE OF THE APPENDIX, if we were designed, then your god is a crap designer, or evolution is true.
Do you know what the appendix does? absolutely nothing, except, and this is crucial, it only is detrimental to our body.

'However, most physicians and scientists believe the appendix lacks significant function, and that it exists primarily as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors.'

[maj1n]

Despite the fact that you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph, yes, there are still "missing links". You may think that the human history of evolution is complete, however you failed to mention that there are still quite large gaps in the animal record. As for humans, I don't see how you can say it's complete. Most of the fossil finds held up as paragons of Evolution are fakes. Lucy, for example. there is evidence that the reconstructor changed her position from being stopped over on all fours to being upright.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens

they are the most prominent humanoid fossils, can you please rebut them all.


really. see above. And jsut because the great and holy "scientific community" deems somethign wrong doesn't mean it is. for example, the scientific community of the day thought Columbas was insane when he said the world was round.

wait, so with your logic, i shouldnt believe in gravity? sigh, please work on your arguments.



That doesn't mean that he went to heaven. According to Christians such as myself, the requirement for salvation is several things. 1) believe Jesus died on the cross to take your place, and that he rose again three days later. 2) repent of said sins
True repentance is followed by a changing of actions, nto because it's necessary for salvation, but because it's what Jesus would have us to do. The mass murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. is not exactly what I would call repentance.

sorry no, if Hitler believes Jesus as his salvation, then he goes into Heaven, ALL major christian denominations agree with this.
Your particular little spin to try and make Hitler not go into heaven, is totally untrue and totally insulting to the major christian denominations.

"salvation means that all have sinned and are justly under God's condemnation. Atonement or reconciliation with God is possible for anyone, but only through Jesus Christ by (1) confession of sin and (2) faith in Christ as Lord and Savior"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation


Who wrote the new testament, if not the disciples? Who started Christianity, if not the disciples? far out dude, the biggest evidence that Jesus and the disciples existed is the very fact that christianity exists. As for archeological data, I don't have anything right now, but I can get it if necessary . . .

wooooah stop right there, so every pagan religion is also true because it existed? Mithraism was true? Buddhism is true?
and there is no archeological evidence of Jesus existing, none.


obviously you read far enough to get to the difference, but not far enough. Either that or you just got the information off of some website. One of the lineages is of Jesus' father, the other from his mother.

totally incorrect, false and misleading.

ill start it off.

Luke 3:23-31
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

where exactly did it mention Mary? nowhere.

heres another

MT 1:17: 28 generation from David to jesus
LK 3:23-38 now there is 43.



This is a flawed argument. The statement was, that both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. It's true, the evidence is the fossil record. And comparing interpreting the length of a wall with the fossil record is just ludicrous.

no, where did you rebut my argument? but call my comparison ludicrous.
This shows you HAVE NO REBUTTAL.
Also, observed speciation, genetic similarity, fossil record.
etc..etc...etc


if creation doesn't, neither does evolution (see above) however, creation still does adhere to the scientific method, it just uses one more piece of evidence to interpret the data. The Bible.

Here ill explain this reaaaaaaaaally simply.
Science is based firmly on the natural universe.
The Bible has supernatural tales.
They are not compatible, i repeat, they are not compatible.
The reason is, a supernatural event cannot be falsified, it cannot be re-tested, and it does not adhere to any natural law, thus there can be no evidence for it.

So if the Bible fails scientific criteria, how can you say you can use it? it seems you are wrong.




Again, there isn't enough time to actually do it. We don't have 52 players, we have like, 1/millionth of a player

enough time for what? speciation has been observed my friend, evolution is fact in the scientific community.


Why are there natural laws to begin with? You can say that they were alwys there, but why?

who knows? they are there and thats all that matters.
I suppose you somehow think this is indication of God?

ok show me how this logic statement works.

p1.We dont know how natural laws came about.
c1. Therefore God did it

it doesnt work for me.So

[Haik]

To get into heaven, you just need to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior. That’s it. No strings attached. That’s your ticket to get into heaven.

I'm confused... What is heaven actually?

[Danny Lilithborne]

To get into heaven, you just need to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior. That’s it. No strings attached. That’s your ticket to get into heaven.Whether this is true or not, you just brought up my main beef with Christianity... namely, you don't have to do anything good to get the promised reward, you just have to believe. That's the main reason why Christianity continues to be popular. No sacrifice is required; no major lifestyle changes. Just believe that Jesus died for your particular sins, and it's all good in the hood, y'all.

I can't believe in a God that would accept a soul that constantly sinned against Him, just because when death loomed near he changed his mind. There has to be some justice in His worlds.

[kakako petja]

it doesn't matter if one doesn't beliefs in god, though you couldn't call him a christian for instance. as long as he beliefs in non-testable ways, theories for short he will be religious. if you have tested something you know cause and the effect. you are a scientist at that point. allot of traditions are meant to give better health and are based on wisdom but somehow because of just believing and not understanding the hole religion has become some kind of story telling, theorizing without facts, as base for the theorie. in almost all religions there is one fact: god exists. so if you dont belief in him... doesn't matter as long as your happy. scientists are men of facts but they too must be carefull of their theories because they might let someone belief in bullshit and lead them in a wrong direction. religion is for unhealthy people, people who like different stories, fantasies, and hey i'm not saying there isn't a god but the universe is what science says it is bing bang etc. and if there is a god that does cool magic then that would be interresting to know to but it doesnt make you healthy or truly happy, meaning a stable mind.

[skunkworks]

Jesus didn't have to die for our sins. Original sin is a silly idea. The Old Testament says that as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, men would be cursed to toil in the fields, and women would suffer through childbirth. Jesus did not accomplish anything the Messiah was supposed to accomplish. The "second coming" is just a way to justify the fact that he didn't do anything.

[Aldredian_Sahn]

First-off, I'd just like to say that philosophy is an endless paradox in itself.

It's rough getting the truth out there when not only do you have the opposing side, but you have people who either claim to be on your side and aren't or you have people on your side who don't know enough to argue certain points, but do it anyway. And then, at any point any of us could be anyone of those people if we're not careful. Can everyone agree with me there?

"Argue what you know, but know that you don't know everything you're arguing." - That's my quote for the moment. *smiles go out to all :)"

-------------------------


To get into heaven, you just need to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior. That’s it. No strings attached. That’s your ticket to get into heaven.
Whether this is true or not, you just brought up my main beef with Christianity... namely, you don't have to do anything good to get the promised reward, you just have to believe. That's the main reason why Christianity continues to be popular. No sacrifice is required; no major lifestyle changes. Just believe that Jesus died for your particular sins, and it's all good in the hood, y'all.

I can't believe in a God that would accept a soul that constantly sinned against Him, just because when death loomed near he changed his mind. There has to be some justice in His worlds.

You don't have to do anything good to get the promised reward; you just have to believe. For all the Christians out there, I hope this isn't what you believe. Because you better well know that repentance is not only a change of mind, but a change of action. So if you're not changing both of those, you aren't really repenting because it's a lot like saying, "Mom, dad, I'm sorry for crashing the car, but I don't think I'm going to drive any better from this point forward. But thanks for forgiving me. I only hope you will do it again next time."

God knows what is on your hearts. You can't slip past him at the last moment while you are lying there on your deathbeds and think by telling him you're sorry that he'll forgive you. Of course there are some people who really are sorry and they realize all that they have done and God will accept them, but that's not for us to decide or know. Everyone will be fairly judged when the time comes and no one will be left out. I can promise you that much.

Allow me to just say this also, as a side note: there is a thin line between good and evil, if you love both this world and God, but there is a thick line present if you love only God.

[MartialHorror]

Jesus didn't have to die for our sins. Original sin is a silly idea. The Old Testament says that as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, men would be cursed to toil in the fields, and women would suffer through childbirth. Jesus did not accomplish anything the Messiah was supposed to accomplish. The "second coming" is just a way to justify the fact that he didn't do anything.

Ugh, idiots who want to post shit like this need to remember that Christian mentality and everyone elses mentality are going to be different.

If you aren't a Christian, and are most likely closed-minded(To be clear, I'm not saying if you arent Christian, you are closed minded...), you wont get it.

Jesus did not take away sin from the Earth, he just died so we can be forgiven for them.

[sensaike]

Human beings are afraid of what they don’t understand. Like the saying goes, (my saying) “what we don’t understand we fear and destroy”

Death is a gift to us human. One that we were not meant to have. For those who believe in God. (Remember what happened to the first two human ever creative?) If you ask me, death is what gives us a purpose. Think about it, with out death we would have noting to look forward to and nothing we couldn’t do. It all would be a matter of time, until you do it. Cause eventually we would do everything and we would become bored, of immortality, of life…It is because of death that we volume the stuff we do. Because we know that, we may not get another chance to do it. You only have one chance and you have to do what u have to do. Went you have to it.

Don’t get me wrong though. Went I said it was a gift. I dint meant a gift from God to us. He gave it to us as a sentence, death sentence… Why he did it? I can’t really get that. Either because he was afraid of us or to save us. Depends on what you want to believe or know… He did say that we had the same abilities as him or more like we could get the same abilities as him (went we ate the fruit) Therefore, we must die… Either because he loves being more powerful then us and having us as puppets or because we would kill ourselves with it.

For those who don’t believe in God. U don’t have to. I don’t either. I believe he exists. However, I will not follow him. People go to church, pray for him, and obey him, because they fear him. They know that if he does exist. They would rather go with him, because he can save and protect them. They only do what they do because they know that he can erase them if he wants… that’s fear and not having freedom. We were place in this earth to be free and find ours purpose. However, you can’t do that if you are a mindless follower!

I don’t know what Gods purpose was for creating us. Maybe, we were not even creative by him. Maybe, we were creative by a bacterium like the one scientist believes. Who knows? Nevertheless, we do know this; we are here so lets do what we have to do and what we want to do. Let us enjoy ourselves… Be happy…

For those who believe in God so much, remember that he wouldn’t tell you the full truth if it were to get in the way of his plans. He would tell you what you want to heard… Doesn’t even have to get in his way, he can just lie to you. Not everything is the way it appears to be…

If you are asking, why is it that I’m telling you how to think or what to think about went I say I believe in freedom? It is because people will listen. Because as much as I hate it, people are mostly followers. In addition, they are use to learning like this. So I’m teaching you the way you are use to learn because is easier for you to learn…

Think about it, God get all the praise for all the good things in life, yet never gets blame for the bad ones. Whys is that? Either because people can’t bring themselves to believe that god may be bad or that he doesn’t help us. On the other hand, it could be because they are afraid of him. People have their brain shut to anything other then what they want to believe or what they were teach... They refuse to believe anything other then what they want to believe… If you ask me having, an open mind is the best thing that one can do. An advice can come from anybody, don’t matter who he is or what his intention was or is…

[kakako petja]

allot of the things god would agree by. and things that would be good and things that would be bad are pure manners and logics of conduct. why not just think for yourself what the right thing would be.
love is "i want something" fear is "i want something but i can't get it".
peace

[WayfarerStrife]

Hi ... It is nice to see a religious debate here that didn't end up that most of other forums I visited ... (maybe it is the name of the Thread ...)

Anyway, may I add my noobish personal thoughts on the subject ?
(Christianity isn't my field, so forgive me if I have said anything wrong ... :tem )


If I asked why so many people believe in God, you'd say "people are weak." I would say due to indoctrinization and the heavy influence of religion, not unlike why people believed that the Earth was once flat, or that disea